Holy grail found (email me at colintrans@gmail.com, respected forum members only)
Quote: ExultantExactly correct no joke. Test it for yourself.
Its been tested to death for 200 years. In roulette
its called OTL, 'other than last' outcome.
Quote: ExultantTest it for yourself.
I have, and let me be the first to congratulate you on a system that is just as good as betting either Black or Red 100% of the time.
Quote: Mission146Please tell me you're messing with me and knew I was kidding!
Are you kidding now? How do I tell?
Quote: EvenBobAre you kidding now? How do I tell?
Utilize that Conservative intellectual curiosity that Duff swears you have:-)
Quote: ExultantIf you go random.org or any other RNG and paste in word numbers from 1 and 2 which represent red and black. control find the sequence "1,1" or "2,2" pops up 16k and "2,1" "1,2" pops up 24k in 100k spins.
You seem like a relatively smart person. Surely you know that the wheel has no way of knowing what the previous spin was. And, given that the wheel lacks a memory, and given that there are equal numbers of red and black spaces, it should be obvious that the odds of hitting red or black are identical on any given spin.
Why do you think your system works?
Quote: rdw4potusYou seem like a relatively smart person. Surely you know that the wheel has no way of knowing what the previous spin was. And, given that the wheel lacks a memory, and given that there are equal numbers of red and black spaces, it should be obvious that the odds of hitting red or black are identical on any given spin.
Why do you think your system works?
But why is it, always 24k vs 16k on true random sites.
Quote: ExultantIf you go random.org or any other RNG and paste in word numbers from 1 and 2 which represent red and black. control find the sequence "1,1" or "2,2" pops up 16k and "2,1" "1,2" pops up 24k in 100k spins.
What appears for the other 20k times?
Quote: thecesspitWhat appears for the other 20k times?
20k? And what about the 40k after that? :-)
Quote: rdw4potus20k? And what about the 40k after that? :-)
16+16+24+24 = 80. 100k spins, there's 20k patterns missing on that search. A quick look at how the count is done on a search on a web browser will show you wants occurring with those counts.
Quote: thecesspit16+16+24+24 = 80. 100k spins, there's 20k patterns missing on that search. A quick look at how the count is done on a search on a web browser will show you wants occurring with those counts.
I would guess that it is possibly not counting the same number as part of two different patterns, either that, or in a pattern such as 2, 2, 2, 1 it discludes the third two as being part of a 2, 2 pattern (because the previous two 2's were) and includes it only as being part of the 2, 1 pattern.
Are there not three outcomes on one spin?Quote: thecesspitWhat appears for the other 20k times?
Black, Red and Zero
BB
BR
B0
RB
RR
R0
0B
0R
00
Multinomial Distribution
Each sequence has a mean and variance
Quote: guido111Are there not three outcomes on one spin?
Black, Red and Zero
BB
BR
B0
RB
RR
R0
0B
0R
00
Multinomial Distribution
Each sequence has a mean and variance
That's true, but he did not even include any room for the 0, 00 in his simulation. Further, if he had, they certainly would not have affected 20,000 patterns. They would come up 1/37 of the time, and there are 50,000 two number patterns (if each number may only be considered once), so the zero would only affect 50,000/37 or 1,351 patterns.
Still a gaping hole in his Sim., though, not including the zero.
You are right.Quote: Mission146That's true, but he did not even include any room for the 0, 00 in his simulation. Further, if he had, they certainly would not have affected 20,000 patterns. They would come up 1/37 of the time, and there are 50,000 two number patterns (if each number may only be considered once), so the zero would only affect 50,000/37 or 1,351 patterns.
Still a gaping hole in his Sim., though, not including the zero.
Yeah, he must be counting the overlapping patterns. Looks to be the case
Seq (1 In)
BB/RR 6.280864 (=Black^-2+Black^-1)
BR/RB 4.225309 (=Red^-1*Black^-1)
That means he should be betting for overlapping sequences of length 2. Like team play.
Too much to read in this thread!
Maybe too many 6 packs too
There are only 9 possible 2 spin sequences
OP has been calculating overlapping sequences or not understanding what he has been calculating
Here is a table of my 200,000 spin simulation.
(returning 100,000 2 spin sequences)
I used the Mersenne twister prng.
It does just fine for simulations like this.
Simple math for simple minds like myself.
| Sequence | Freq | Actual Prob | Prob | 1 in | EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR | 23,991 | 23.991% | 23.667% | 4.225308642 | 23,666.91 |
| RB | 23,751 | 23.751% | 23.667% | 4.225308642 | 23,666.91 |
| R0 | 1,372 | 1.372% | 1.315% | 76.05555556 | 1,314.83 |
| BR | 23,471 | 23.471% | 23.667% | 4.225308642 | 23,666.91 |
| BB | 23,508 | 23.508% | 23.667% | 4.225308642 | 23,666.91 |
| B0 | 1,264 | 1.264% | 1.315% | 76.05555556 | 1,314.83 |
| 00 | 67 | 0.067% | 0.073% | 1369 | 73.05 |
| 0R | 1,315 | 1.315% | 1.315% | 76.05555556 | 1,314.83 |
| 0B | 1,261 | 1.261% | 1.315% | 76.05555556 | 1,314.83 |
| Totals | 100,000 | 100.000% | 1 | 100,000 |
I think I can take this to the bank.
Enjoy!
One of our moderators might want to take a look at the IP coming in, I'm thinking it might be a double accounter.
Quote: Exultantpatterns and gamblers fallacy exist.
Ummm...you know what gamblers fallacy means, right? Your system is a perfect example of it, and that's actually the point that all of the rest of us are making here.
Quote: rdw4potusUmmm...you know what gamblers fallacy means, right? Your system is a perfect example of it, and that's actually the point that all of the rest of us are making here.
If my system is a perfect example of gambler's fallacy then isn't that the holy grail? People argue that every spin is independent hence gambler's fallacy is only a myth.
Quote: ExultantIf my system is a perfect example of gambler's fallacy then isn't that the holy grail? People argue that every spin is independent hence gambler's fallacy is only a myth.
You really need to look up the word fallacy in a dictionary
Gambler's fallacy is the Holy Grail: neither exist.
Quote: heatheriLike-Centre Roulette e-Book
Appears to be either intended as marketing for a specific online casino, or possibly an affiliate of theirs. Goes to great lengths to explain downloading and installing their software. The actual Roulette system is a simple Martingale.
Banned Roulette Secrets
Makes the astounding claim that, in online Roulette games, a programming flaw requires that "at least ONE 'High', 'Medium', and 'Low' number MUST always appear in 16 consecutive spins". Then proposes that you watch the wheel without betting until a streak of five spins go by without one of those three bets hitting, at which point you should start betting, increasing by one unit after every loss.
Force the Zero Roulette System
Claims that online Roulette is programmed to respond to a steady stream of black/red wins by generating zeros. Proposes that the enduser take advantage of this by betting black, red, and zero simultaneously on each spin.
Roulette Gambling Secret - Make £200 a Day
Says to Martingale on black or red.
Is this system comparable to any of those? I keep hoping that someone will come up with a Roulette system that's really interesting, but they all seem to be pretty disappointingly simple when you actually find out how they work.
This one is interesting, though, in that the system's architect keeps getting confused as to which system they're talking about and going back and forth on whether it works or not. Makes for better reading than your average system thread.
This system is a way of generating guesses. That's it. Everything else is bullshit, everything else is posturing.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHmmm.... I may be tripping on semantics, but I think he's right.
Gambler's fallacy is the Holy Grail: neither exist.
Wait, gambler's fallacy doesn't exist?
Quote: FinsRuleWait, gambler's fallacy doesn't exist?
wait, Jesus lived all those years without ever taking a drink from a cup? :-)
What you are doing wrong is,Quote: ExultantNow do "1 2 1" or "2 1 2", it shows up less than "1 2 2" or "2 1 1" giving you a 5.5% edge with no zero.
What am i doing wrong?
If double counting was the error, then it should still be consistent when i narrow it down.
You or your counting program are counting a sequence of length 3 as overlapping sequences.
The probability of 121, 212, 122 and 211 in 3 spins (no zero) are identical.
I do not see what your problem is in seeing this.
Here is a 30 spin sample. just 1s and 2s
That makes for 10 sequences of length 3... NOT 28 such sequences.
DNA pattern researchers can count that way, but not one casino gambler should count that way.
Mutually exclusive and independent sequences.
count the number of sequences of
121: 0
212: 0
122: 2
211: 1
After we count the first 3 spins, those have to be thrown away and we look at the next 3 spins.
Take sequence 121.
The count is Zero. There are none.
I highlighted in blue where *you* are counting the 121 sequence (spins 5,6,7) and again at (17,18,19),
but you are over-counting because of the overlapping sequences.
We can only count the sequences of spins as 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10,12, 13-15, 16-18 etc.
The 100,000 spins example should be obvious.
You can only have 50,000 2 spin sequences.
Team play can count the over-lapping sequences, but that requires more than one player and more than one bankroll.
spin #1: PlayerA bets only
spin#2: PlayerA and PlayerB bets
spin#3:PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all bet spin #3
spin#4: PLayerB and PlayerC only bet. Why? PlayerA has already bet his 3 spins
spin#5: PlayerC bets only. Why? Both PlayersA and B have already bet their 3 spins. They over-lapped.
5 spins and 2 players have already bet 3 spins each.
That is 6 spins in 5 spins.
confusing, yes, but only because we are counting the over-lapping spins.
I know, my 7y/o grandson says this is boring, too easy
Good Luck to you
Enjoy
You have to watch at least 36 consecutive spins without betting. Starting with the 37th spin, whatever number comes up, you go that many numbers back and bet whatever the result of THAT spin was.
If the tail end of the 36 is....6, 17, 9, 3....and then a 4 comes up, you go back four spins and bet on, "6."
I'm in the middle of finalizing my second mortgage right now in order to finance myself for this can't lose system!!!
(Everything above is a joke, btw) ;)
Quote: Mission146I've finally got it:
You have to watch at least 36 consecutive spins without betting. Starting with the 37th spin, whatever number comes up, you go that many numbers back and bet whatever the result of THAT spin was.
If the tail end of the 36 is....6, 17, 9, 3....and then a 4 comes up, you go back four spins and bet on, "6."
I'm in the middle of finalizing my second mortgage right now in order to finance myself for this can't lose system!!!
(Everything above is a joke, btw) ;)
damnit! no fair! You have to wait for the "0" jokes to come in before revealing the joke:-)
Quote: rainmanI'm not nominating anyone. I already know its bullshit! I'm just trying to figure out what your up too. Clearly your not on the level.
This guy didn't have me for a second.
FYI, I've also run numbers from Random.org but I did 100k numbers from 1-36 (I only play zero roulette anyway) and using vlookup applied whether each number was red or black (I could have just said 1-18 were red and the rest black as the end result would be the same but I went for reality anyway).
I managed to get a streak of over 20 reds in a row at one point. On average I get streaks of 15-18 of the same colour coming up at some point when I've run off 100k lists since.
So no, OP's 'holy grail' isn't as holy as first thought.
