But can any roulette strategy win over a human being's average working lifetime - part-time of course (because if you were to do it full-time, it's just another job, right? Make it simple...50 years, 20 hours a week(5x4hr sessions), approximately 30 spins an hour = approximately 1.5 million spins? Can someone play part-time for a living with a system that earns $50 an hour? That's $1k clear per week. It might not be enough fir some but for the

majority if you told them that they could earn $1k a week clear working 20 hrs part-time a week they'd be in. Is it possible on a B & M roulette table?

For those who think $1k a week is not enough, how about $3k?!!! Read on....

I know of a lot of people who supposedly gamble for a living but a poker mate of mine who's very well off due to his poker and gambling 'career' invited me to study some of his systems for a roulette table available at a local casino in Australia. I'm assuming it would be available at many casinos around the world as well. It's a computerized roulette set-up that supports about 50 seated players. It's built by a company called Vegas Star.

The interesting features make it different to the B & M and online roulette tables:

- virtual dealer that produces a spin every 40 seconds , it gives you 15 secs to make a bet but with the spinning process, the total time from one spin to the next is about 40 secs. So about 100 spins an hour. (So instead of 20 hours a week Can find the same online but at least 3 times as fast as B&M tables.

- Minimum table bet is only $2.50, max is $1,000,000!!! The only thing is the maximum on straight bets is $100 and $500 on everything else. One interesting thing is you can bet a minimum bet of 50cents on a straight up and put the remaining required on black and red, i.e. 50c on a number and then $1 on red & $1 on black to cover the table minimum.

- the thing that makes it different to online is that there are up to 50 real people playing at your table at once and it feels real that a computer is not shafting you with their supposed RNG that's not supposed to be "influenced by a players bets". You all know what I mean. And of course the limits as mentioned above.

So is there a way either in a B & M or with the above virtual to make $50 an hour with a tiny chance of losing. Say one in every 13,000 sessions which is how many you'd play in the 50 years???

And my friend's strategy:

I know this will get ripped, I already told him about the long-term but he's shown a $90 p/hr profit over 30 sessions without a losing session.

Initial bankroll $3431.

A 150 spin progression model for a single number straight up bet that earns a minimum of $1 a spin.

The sequence below shows:

Single bet/total acc bets /return /profit.

1/1/36/35

1/2/36/34

1/3/36/33

1/4/36/32

1/5/36/31

1/6/36/30

1/7/36/29

1/8/36/28

1/9/36/27

1/10/36/26.............10

1/11/36/25

1/12/36/24

1/13/36/23

1/14/36/22

1/15/36/21..............15

1/16/36/20

1/17/36/19

1/18/36/18

2/20/72/52

2/22/72/50...............20

2/24/72/48

2/26/72/46

2/28/72/44

2/30/72/42

2/32/72/40................25

2/34/72/38

2/36/72/36

2/38/72/34

2/40/72/32

2/42/72/30

3/45/108/63................31

3/48/108/60

3/51/108/57

3/54/108/54

3/57/108/51................35

3/60/108/48

3/63/108/45

3/66/108/42

3/69/108/39................39

4/73/144/71

4/77/144/67

4/81/144/63

4/85/144/59

4/89/144/55

4/93/144/51...............45

4/97/144/47

5/102/180/78..............47

5/107/180/73

5/112/180/68

5/117/180/63

5/122/180/58

5/127/180/53..........52

6/133/216/83

6/139/216/77

6/145/216/71

6/151/216/65

6/157/216/59............57

7/164/252/88

7/171/252/81

7/178/252/74

7/185/252/67.............61

8/193/288/95

8/201/288/87

8/209/288/79

8/217/288/71..............65

9/226/324/98

9/235/324/89

9/244/324/80

9/253/324/71................69

10/263/360/97

10/273/360/87

10/283/360/77............72

11/294/396/102

11/305/396/91

11/316/396/80............75

12/328/432/104

12/340/432/92

12/352/432/80

13/365/468/103

13/378/468/90...........80

14/392/504/112

14/406/504/98

14/420/504/84

15/435/540/105

15/450/540/90............85

16/466/576/110

16/482/576/94

17/499/612/113

17/516/612/96

18/534/648/114..........90

18/552/648/96

19/571/684/113

19/590/684/94

20/610/720/110

21/631/756/125..........95

21/652/756/104

22/674/792/118

23/697/828/131

23/720/828/108

24/744/864/120...........100

25/769/900/131

26/795/936/141

26/821/936/115

27/848/972/124

28/876/1008/132............105

29/905/1044/139

30/935/1080/145

31/966/1116/150

31/997/1116/119

32/1029/1152/123.........110

33/1062/1188/126

34/1096/1224/128

35/1131/1260/129

36/1167/1296/129

37/1204/1332/128.........115

38/1242/1368/126

40/1284/1440/156

41/1325/1476/161

42/1367/1512/145

43/1410/1548/138..........120

45/1455/1620/165

46/1501/1656/155

47/1548/1692/144

49/1597/1764/167

50/1647/1800/153...........125

52/1699/1872/173

53/1752/1908/156

55/1807/1980/173

56/1863/2016/153

57/1899/2052/153...........130

58/1957/2088/131

60/2017/2160/143

62/2079/2232/153

63/2142/2268/126

65/2207/2340/133...........135

67/2274/2412/138

69/2343/2484/137

71/2414/2556/142

73/2487/2628/141

75/2552/2700/148...........140

77/2629/2772/143

79/2708/2844/136

82/2790/2952/162

84/2874/3024/152

87/2961/3132/171.........145

89/3050/3204/154

92/3142/3312/170

94/3234/3384/150

97/3331/3492/161

100/3431/3600/169..........150

The betting strategy is quite unique and semi-easy to follow. He writes down the last 10 numbers as a basepoint column on a table that has 10 rows and over 100 columns. He then continues to write in numbers after every second column. He tracks the base points numbers and marks in every second column which numbers have NOT repeated within the next ten spins. The tables end looking like this.

12 17 x 5 x

36 33 x 3 x

4 9 x 20 x

1 2 x 21 x

10 10 30 x

10 3 31

8 20 x 36

7 6 x 1 x

10 21 22

24 32 x 30 x

Hope you understand the marking process. An example for the first row. The 1st number is 12, it does not show up again for the next 10 numbers so it get an x after the number 17 on the next column as by that time that is the 10th spin that 12 has not shown up again. So on, so on.

The strategy needs a bit of time though. My mate waits until there have been 8 x's in a row in one particular row, meaning that there has been 80 spins where 8 different numbers have not shown up again in their corresponding following 10 spins. He then starts the progression betting strategy.

He states the highest he has seen in his progression model is a streak of 144 losses over 30 sessions. That means he has only bet his 64th bet in his progression betting structure. I.e the $8 bet where he made a progression profit of $79. He still has a buffer of another 86 spins after this!!!

He explains to me that he cannot do it at other tables at the casino since the minimum bet is $2.5 per straight up bet and the maximum is still $100. And the big one, time, it would take him around 100 spins before he ever starts betting one of the rows that have reach 8 x's so on a B & M table it would take him about 3 hours before he even starts betting. On these virtual tables it's within an hour sometime even with 45 mins because there are already 22 numbers per-recorded on the screen when he arrives at the table. So only needs wait for another 70-80 spins normally for one of the rows to register 8 x's.

Would anyone know the odds of this strategy failing? Because I've told him it will eventually fail but it's tough to explain to him after he has won 30 straight four hour sessions for a net $12k profit and having 84 spins still as a buffer behind his longest streak.

I've tried it myself with only $500 bankroll and doubling the amounts of each bet (reduces the number i

Of bets I can make only around 70 from the 150 that my mate has patience for but doubles my hourly) I've won 2 sessions so far for a net profit of $1600 from only $500 bankroll!!!

BTW-It's a single zero table!

So what's the odds of my mate losing his 230 spin progression? That's 80 that he waits and 150 that he bets?

Is it 36/37 to the power of 230??? That means he will lose 1 in every 545 progressions. That can't be right can it?

What's the odds of me losing my $500 before the end of my session? Do I have a better than 40% chance of lasting? If so then I would show a profit right? Winning sessions & 6 losing sessions would show a profit of $200.

Anyways...thanks in advance for any replies.

Bet $1,000 on a rouloette spin and you can expect to end up with about $950 after that spin, on average. When you figure how to make a living on that, tell nobody. Just hit the casino and live the easiest life ever.

Reminds me of the scene in "Money Never Sleeps" where the guy tells his protege, "so he said don't worry about the losses, I lade more on the losses than I did on the profit--how do you make money on losses??"

Quote:WizardofAusAZ-I'm new to this website forum but I've read all the wizard has written. Even he says you can win in the short-term. But you are probably right about the career period. This will not make it even close. My friends stats are impressive though. I would love to know the stats/probabilities as my Math's isn't as great as most in here. I dropped out of actuary school after the first year :)

Well, you can win any non-rigged game in the short-term. I didn't even make it past Algebra II. But the biggest mistake in casinos is thinking in trends and not realizing every event is independent (except shoe-dealt BJ to an extent.)

Welcome to the board, BTW!

plus most of his BR. You can't trick the house edge with a

progression. The only way you can win consistantly is to have

the edge over the casino. This method doesn't have it.

Does anyone know the maths/probability of the above?

Cheers.

Yep.Quote:WizardofAusIs there a software I can download to do a simulation?

Does anyone know the maths/probability of the above?

Cheers.

Try Roulette Xtreme software.

Roulette Xtreme

Shareware for 30 days and I think about $30 to register.

You can program any method you can think of, after learning the program's language, and solve this for yourself.

They offer many free examples and a pdf for learning how to program.

It took me a few weeks to get good at and is now very easy to use. A small learning curve but a good program if you want to run sims for Roulette.

Much appreciated.

What matters for this system is it appears you are betting up to 100 times on a single number result. On a 0 wheel, you will lose each spin with probability 0.972972973. You will lose 100 times in a row with probability 0.064576971.

6.5% chance of busting on 3431 unit bankroll, each time you start a new progression.

If you like having money, don't do it.

It's 230 spins.

So what would the figures be for that? Is it what I said originally - 1 in every 545 progressions? 36/37 to power of 230?

but i don't see you actually laying money down on 230 spins in a row in that progressive system. If the system says "watch these numbers for X spins, then bet for Y spins until it comes up", your money is only at risk during the Y spins. You use the formula (36/37)^Y.

The system seems to have 100 betting steps.

Unless I were standing right next to him, I would treat it as hearsay. I would look at his charts and say, "Wow. That's really awesome!"

Mrs and I have a friend who holds a Mohegan Elite card. She's always chirping about all her big hits on the slots, and she shows Mrs Mosca the tickets to prove it. It's gotten to the point where Mrs is chasing big wins; whereas she used to quit and pocket when she got up a couple hundred, now she keeps playing to bust.

And I say, "Honey. She's playing the same machines we do. We know how they work. There aren't any secret slots in a back room reserved for Lori. Think about how much you have to lose in order to get a $400 win; it's 5 times that for her to win $2000, and she's showing you those a couple times a week. They have a daughter in college, a mortgage, and Mike got laid off this spring. There's going to be a reckoning. Maybe not tomorrow, or next week, or next month. But there's going to be a reckoning."

And that's what I say about your friend. There's going to be a reckoning.

Quote:WizardofAusThanks dwh for the numbers- finally got some figures on it - the only thing is - it's not for 100 spins in a row.

It's 230 spins.

It is actually only 100 spins. The fact that you have been watching it for 130 spins before you start betting is irrelevant. Why? Well, because when you are betting on number 25, and it hits after, say, 48 spins, you make some money on it, but if you are just watching, without making a bet, you don't gain anything when it hits.

See how it is different? The probability of your progression winning is an estimate for the ratio of number of times you are ahead to the number of times you play. If a number hits during first 230 spins, it's simply a non-event, you do not play at all in that case, so it simply does not matter.

What you really want to count is how often you will make 100 bets, and lose all 100. That is (36/37)^100, meaning that you will on average bust once out of every 16 times you use your progression.

The waiting is 80 spins and the betting is 150 spins - so the progression is 36/37^150 = 0.016410299 - So it will crash about 1 in every 61 progressions that are bet.

The minimum he wins per progression is $18 but the average is about $40. - So with a BR of $3400 he's looking at losing $1,000 every 61 progressions - now that's a sucker bet.

BTW - I've won another two sessions - $500 BR - same progression but only the first 70 betting spins - I wait 80 as well. So far I'm up $3,200 from my initial $500 BR.

My chance of busting the $500 is one in every measly 6.8 progressions. So far I've played approximately 40 progressions - it's about 2.5 progressions every hour that you find you start betting. So I've really hit a good spot of the infinity wheel.

This might open up a can of worms but is there anything in RNG's or these virtual roulette machines that have parameters that they need to stick in? I.e. With a 99% Degree of certainty the following must be evident:

- number X needs to come up within 400 spins (I've only seen one number in all my hours on these tables to have not shown up within the recorded numbers on the casiono's board - they advise cold numbers and their freqeuncy for the last 250 spins - there was one number that had zero - it eventually turned up after 304 spins).

- The RNG must create a certain degree of randomness with numbers - so no 1/2/3/4 numbers can turn up more than - On another thread - someone explained to me about Chi Square and the expectations casinos use with formulas to test their wheels. Could the randomness of the RNG for these virtual wheels have something built into it so that it falls within something similar?

I know even with the above we can't say that a number "should" come up or is "due" soon - but is it due over the next 150 spins? e.g. say a number doesn't come up 200 times - is it due in the next 150 spins? What is the degree of certainty - is it 1 - (36/37^350) = 99.99315%????

If the above is not right (which I'm sure people will tell me it's not) - let's look at the real life situation - say we collected from this virtual machine - 61 numbers/progressions as explained in my original scenarion (every tenth number,etc) that did not come up 200 spins in a row - then applied the 150 betting progression - I can't really see how this can collapse 1 in every 61 progressions - I really can't see it losing over 350 spins. People will still tell me it will because the past doesn't matter - but the RNG must have something to do with that right? Let's change the argument - over a year we collect 61 progressions where it's gone 350 spins - add the 150 betting spins on top - we're looking at 500 spins - I really can't see this system/strategy breaking down after 61 goes.

The degree of certainty and the RNG of the software must somehow defunct the gambler's fallacy somehow right?? Maybe not over a billion or 10 billion spins but at least for a human's lifetime right?

The sample programs that are loaded are all kinda straight forward. There's not one that comes close to the complication that this system presents.

I'm not sure how to ask the program to check the 10 spins after every number and if all 10 misses - add total to a table with 10 groups (one group per the 10 rows as explained in the system.

Then start betting once one of the groups hits 80 as a count. Then after every 10th number after 80 for that row/group - change the placement of the bet to that new 10th number?

Are you able to help or is there anyone else out there that can help me?

If not -

Anyone with any Roulette Xtreme programming skills that can help me with the following simple request:

Place 1 unit for every 10th number recorded for the ten spins after each of those recorded 10th numbers.

Thanks in advance.

I've done this manually for 2000 spins by manually placing a unit bet and then doing an auto spin for 10 spins (2000 spins on using Xtreme and the above simple process only represents a 2 hour session of what my friend and I are actually doing atm, since we actually keep track of the 10 spins after every number not every 10th number) and the longest streak of losses has been 133 for the 2000 spins. In total 8 betting progressions that would've netted my friend a profit of $342 under his betting progression. Pretty good - an hourly rate of $170 aint bad.

As advised previously - even with my $500 bankroll and having a 70 betting progression after 80 waiting - I have 150 - so I would've won double the above in the 2 hours.

What I might do is add to this session each day 2000 manual spins and record the result of the session on this thread. I can send the file of the betting to anyone if they wish to see it.

So it starts - the largest losing streak so far has been 133 - it needs to get to 230 before my friends method fails. Remember - he waits 80 then does a 150 betting progression - bankroll $3431.

Quote:WizardofAus

The degree of certainty and the RNG of the software must somehow defunct the gambler's fallacy somehow right?? Maybe not over a billion or 10 billion spins but at least for a human's lifetime right?

It has nothing to do with the software. RNG is just means of producing random numbers. A roulette wheel is a kind of RNG, that is not using any software. Everything, that has been said to you in this thread is equally applicable to any RNG, software or not, as long as it is not "rigged", and is really producing a (close to) uniformly distributed stream of independent numbers.

Quote:WizardofAusI know even with the above we can't say that a number "should" come up or is "due" soon - but is it due over the next 150 spins? e.g. say a number doesn't come up 200 times - is it due in the next 150 spins? What is the degree of certainty - is it 1 - (36/37^350) = 99.99315%????

Nope. It's still (36/37)^150. This is called "conditional probability". The probability that a number does not come up in 350 spins is indeed (36/37)^350, but the probability that it does not hit in 350 spins provided that it already did not hit 200 times is only (36/37)^150. Think about it. What is the probability of a number not hitting 350 times if you already saw it not hit 349?

It's simply 36/37. Simple - you just have one spin left, and the ball does not know it has to hit, it'll just roll as usual, and have a 36/37 chance of hitting some other number.

Quote:WizardofAusAnyone with any Roulette Xtreme programming skills that can help me with the following simple request:

I can tell you beforehand that you're wasting your

time. If you play this way you'll eventually lose all

your winnings and probably your BR. There are

people who've been testing systems for decades

and they're still testing. For the last 200 years, men

far smarter than us tested roulette systems without

computers, and they found nothing that worked.

Mechanical systems can't beat random outcomes,

its impossible.

Do you have a method/system/strategy for roulette that works in the long run?

Quote:KeyserEvenbob,

Do you have a method/system/strategy for roulette that works in the long run?

I have one:

1: Buy a roulette wheel.....

Quote:KeyserEvenbob,

Do you have a method/system/strategy for roulette that works in the long run?

You must have me confused with someone else..

I understand that from a maths point and why the next number is still independent. But under a RNG - doesn't the distribution need to be within certain parameters? Doesn't the distribution -if not rigged - need to show a degree of randomness? I'm not saying this system is random enough (taking every 10th number) to combat the randomness of the RNG but it's a lit better than taking a number and hoping it comes up in the next 230 spins. Taking every 10th number that already has come up and looking at the next 20 spins might slightly cross over at some point in the RNG at a much higher rate than maybe just the one number does.

I know from a pure maths perspective the odds for the above will be the same but I got a tiny feeling that if we were to somehow program this entire process into a software like Roulette Xtreme that has an RNG it might show something different over 10 million spins. Maybe not over 1 billion or 10 billion but at least over a human's lifetime of spins.

Wish I was a programmer. I'll keep trying to learn Xtreme and see if I can automate it a little. The manual process takes me about 10 minutes for the 2000 spins.

BTW - Wishing everyone here a Happy & Prosperous 2012!!!

Quote:WizardofAusI understand that from a maths point and why the next number is still independent. But under a RNG - doesn't the distribution need to be within certain parameters? Doesn't the distribution -if not rigged - need to show a degree of randomness?

Someone already said this, but I think you didn't quite follow:

A roulette wheel in a casino *is* an RNG. A software-based pseudo-random number generator and a mechanical roulette wheel should perform exactly the same from a statistical standpoint, both in the short run and the long run (and any run in between). The only parameters that matter, for either, are that the probability of each number on the wheel be 1/37 (European) or 1/38 (American) regardless of prior number(s) observed.

If your roulette betting system relies on a distribution of numbers other than the above, it won't work in a casino setting. On the flip side, if you expect your roulette betting system to work (beat the house) in a casino, it had better work on paper under the assumption of independent, equally likely outcomes.

But I'll save you some time: it is impossible to construct a betting system that beats a fair roulette wheel. The only known ways to beat roulette have to do with either exploiting mechanical or electronic biases (i.e. an unfair roulette wheel) or determining (via computer or otherwise) the likely section of the wheel where the ball will land and making the appropriate bets between the time the ball is released and when it comes to rest. Neither approach is a "betting system" per se.

There's a lot of factors that may influence the mechanical spin of a roulette wheel that doesn't create an 'even' RNG that would be the same as a virtual computerized RNG. Things like change of dealers, speed if spins, wear & tear, air pressure, humidity,etc. These factors might be really really REALLY tiny but they still alter it by some degree compared to a computerized RNG that diesn't have them right? Over a billion hands it might not alter the real sustriburuon/randomness but I have a feeling that as the number of spins gets smaller the actual distribution of a computers RNG will be closer than a roulette wheel. I.e. more numbers on a computer used RNG will be closer to 2.703% compared to a real roulette table. I would love to see the actual results of casino's who track their numbers in 10k blocks and what the figures are compared to 10k, 50k, 100k, 1 million blocks from a computerized RNG.

I'm sure from a randomness perspective they mathematically from a formula angle will be very similar but the actual distribution as per my above hypothesis might hold true.

So if the 'randomness' is 'more' predictable on these virtual roulette wheels over 34,000 spins it may help us a little.

I seriously would love for someone to come up with a full program that tested this system/strategy. Would be interesting to see over a longer haul than even 34,000 spins.

I'll continue to do it manually as advised.

There are dozens of qualified roulette freaks there who

believe roulette can be beaten with a progression. They'll

even test what you have for you.

Cheers.

If you form some opinion that a particular number is "hot" or "cold" that is fine. If you base this conclusion as being due to a wheel that is biased due to some mechanical defect, humidity, dealer 'touch' or good looking female passing by and distracting the wheel, that too is fine.Quote:WizardofAusI posted something in the other thread but everyone keeps talking about the absolute long run. I understand the long run but we're talking the next 2 hours or the next 34,000 hands which will allow the BR to be won.

The problem is that you seem to keep imagining that the universe will rectify this defect or else maintain this defect for the next two hours. Two hours or two minutes it makes no difference.

If its a modern wheel, its not biased and before you get to start thinking that its biased, the casino will have already tested it.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm actually saying that a mechanical wheel might be too random for this particular system.

I'm trying to say that the RNG of a Virtual wheel might actual be less random and due to this fact a certain level of randomness needs to be evident or can't be evident. For example - it needs to be random but not allow 30 of a particular number turn up after 250 spins. The highest I've seen is 17 for one number on these wheels.

So maybe, with this particular random betting progression where you bet every 10th number that shows up, wait for 80 spins that fon't Nd then bet 150 progression - maybe this is random enough to always clash within the randomness formula of the RNG.

Session (spin 2000-4000):

Betting progressions - 4

Net profit - $133

Total Hours - 2

Hourly - $66

Total (spin 1-4000)

Betting progressions - 12

Net profit - $475

Total Hours - 4

Hourly - $118

Longest losing streak - 159 - so betting step 79 of 150.

Session (spin 4000-6000):

Betting progressions - 7

Net profit - $343

Total Hours - 2

Hourly - $171

Total (spin 1-6000)

Betting progressions - 12

Net profit - $818

Total Hours - 6

Hourly - $136

Here's probably an easier way to look at it - it's the way I've been testing it manually through Xtreme.

Say the first number is 10 - you check the next 10 numbers to see if it comes up again - if it doesn't on the 10th number - say the tenth number was 15 - you swtich to 15 and you check the next 10 number to see if it matches 15 - if the 20th number is say 18 and there has been still no matches - you switch to 18 for spins 21 to 30...and so on.

Once there is 80 spin losing streak you start betting the 150 spin progression as per the above - so for spins 81 to 90 - you place $1 on the number that came up on the 80th spin, if after 10 spins (90th number) there is no match to the 80th number - then you switch to the 90th number and continue the progression betting - say after 150th losing streak - so 70 betting by now - you would be betting $10 on the 71st betting progression step.

That's how I've tested it manually but in the real casino - instead of needing 2000 spins - you only need the 200 spins because your tracking every number and by using 10 rows and x's after each 10 spins for every number - you can actually tack it quite easily which one reaches 8 x's = 80 spins.

I'll try and continue to do the manual process until someone is able to test it using a full program - I've asked on the other website that was suggested - fingers crossed I get some help.

Its either random or its not.Quote:WizardofAusrandom but not allow

B & M roulette table.

Flea - There's gotta be a degree of randomness when a parameter of each roulette number is given an equal chance of coming up. For example the RNG cannot randomly show 30 number 1's in a row 'randomly' - that would not make it random. The reason why it doesn't go this is because it's been advised that each number has the same probability of coming up.

BTW - Really appreciate all the replys. Particularly since I'm only a couple of days old on this forum.

Cheers.

Quote:WizardofAusFor example the RNG cannot randomly show 30 number 1's in a row 'randomly' - that would not make it random. The reason why it doesn't go this is because it's been advised that each number has the same probability of coming up.

That's a damn shame, that's what this is. Just a few days ago I think I did close to thirty number 1's in a row. Damn bastards are never gonna hire me as a RNG, or force me to give up beer, like hell I will. So here go my childhood dreams.

Well, not all hope is lost! I have better grasp of probability than most people, so maybe they'll make me the guy who advises RNGs on the probability of numbers coming up. Come to think of it, that's even cooler.

Quote:WizardofAus30 number 1's in a row 'randomly'

It would be suspect, suspect to the degree that it would be evidence that the wheel is biased. But it is not a contradiction in terms. You see, I am thinking you are believing that when there are, say, 3 1's in a row, that the RNG is now programmed to alter further results. That is indeed the way humans think, and likely what many a human would do who was trying to imitate an RNG. But not a true RNG. I was just using a wincraps game that rolled 4 7s in a row while I was playing darkside. The odds against that are up there, but actually it would be even odder if it never happened. I can save the RNG used and roll a million more rolls, and what I will find is that the anomaly is insignificant because the data of the larger numbers overwhelms it. Not because the program has instructions to clear out the anomaly. You need to grasp this or you will drive we of the counter-argument crazy!

Quote:WizardofAusP90 - I'm not 100% sure whatvyou're pointing out with your response there?

You said "RNG has been advised".

That implies two things:

1) RNGs can receive, understand and heed advice.

2) Someone is handing out practical advice to RNGs.

Both require sentience, so unless strong AI has just been invented, there have to be job positions open for either. And I can think of worse ways to make a living than spouting random numbers or advising others on how to do it.

RNG can create any random numbers from 1-1000000000 or whatever and each equal 37th part is allocated to a particular number right? Isn't that how an RNG works? Then to test the randomness of it it needs to fall within a certain expectoration after a Chi Square formula or something is completed on a certain sample size of actual outcomes.

Can someone confirm this?

Quote:WizardofAus

I understand that from a maths point and why the next number is still independent. But under a RNG - doesn't the distribution need to be within certain parameters?

I said this before - "RNG" is just means of generating random numbers. A physical roulette wheel is a kind of RNG. It does not make any difference whether you ran a ball (no memory) on a wheel or use a computer to generate a (uniformly distributed) random number between 0 and 36 (also no memory).

Your "... but under a RNG" remarks have no meaning. There is no such thing as "under RNG", the only thing that matters is distribution of the random numbers being considered.

Quote:Doesn't the distribution -if not rigged - need to show a degree of randomness?

Yup. Except not "a degree" ... it just needs to be random :)

Quote:I'm not saying this system is random enough (taking every 10th number) to combat the randomness of the RNG but it's a lit better than taking a number and hoping it comes up in the next 230 spins.

I am not sure what you are talking about as "taking every 10th number", but the fact is it does not matter which number you pick, because every number have the same exact probability of hitting on every spit. You can "pick every 10th" (whatever that means), or you can play the "hot and cold game", or just keep betting on your own birth date - it makes no difference whatsoever.

Quote:I know from a pure maths perspective the odds for the above will be the same

There is no such thing as "pure math perspective". All math ever does is describe real life processes. If the description does not fit reality, that means that math is wrong, not "pure". This is not the case though.

Quote:but I got a tiny feeling that if we were to somehow program this entire process into a software like Roulette Xtreme that has an RNG it might show something different over 10 million spins. Maybe not over 1 billion or 10 billion but at least over a human's lifetime of spins.

Your feeling is wrong.

I have no idea what the hell this Xtreme thingy is, but if you explain what exactly it is you are trying to do, I might program it for you myself (you'd have to trust, that I do it honestly of course, and do not "rig" the program just to make the point of proving you wrong, but I have nothing to gain from that, so, it might not be such a huge leap of faith to take).

Quote:weaselman

I have no idea what the hell this Xtreme thingy is, but if you explain what exactly it is you are trying to do, I might program it for you myself

Roulette Xtreme is a programming tool you buy

and download to test systems. I don't even fully

understand what he's doing, but I know it can't

work. You play a huge number of spins and use

a long progression to bet on repeating numbers.

Nothing new at all. Its totally dependant on a big

BR and a progression thats over 100 steps long.

Wease - if you can test it that would be great. I'll try and explain it again step by step.

Say the first 30 numbers are ( 26 being the first number recorded and 19 being the 11th, 21st being number 27):

26 19X 27X

11 12X 22X

5 2 31X

8 33X 33

10 34X 6X

36 29X 4X

5 9X 8X

20 8X 13

3 7X 12X

18 16X 24X

As you can see the 10 numbers after 26 does not have 26 shown up again so you put a X next to the 11th number to indicate that it's been 10 numbers in that row that there's been no repeat of the first base number of 26. It now changes base number to the 11th number which is number 19. As you can see the next ten spins after 19 does not show 19 again so the 21st number gets an X. The new base number for that row is now 27. And so on and so on. There are now 2 X's in that first row in succession - you fon't start using the 150 betting progression until the trigger happens - which is 8 X's -which means 8 base numbers did not hit within their corresponding following 10 spins.

You do the above for each row - hence you are tracking every number that shows up and putting an X if that number doesn't show up again within the next 10 numbers.

Note: If a row does break/win - example row 3 - the thirs number - number 5 does actually hit again within it's next 10 spins and hence doesn't get a corresponding X. Once it hits you stop tracking that row until the next base number which is the 13th which is number 2 - you start the count all over again.

Wease - The above might be a bit too complicated and time consuming to program do the easier way is to just automate what I've been doing manually in Xtreme:

It's like just tracking one row.

Record 1st number. Look at next 10 spins if 1st number does not show up add 10 to row count, if number does show up then reset row count to zero. If row count equals 80 begin progression betting.

Repeat for 11th, 21st, 31st, 41st.....121st......1031st.... and so on.

Hope this is clear.

Cheers.

Quote:WizardofAusThere are now 2 X's in that first row in succession - you fon't start using the 150 betting progression until the trigger happens - which is 8 X's -which means 8 base numbers did not hit within their corresponding following 10 spins.

Ok, and then what? Bet on the last number with the X? (It will be the one, that just showed up, not one of the "cold" ones - not that I think it makes any difference, but to understand what you are talking about). Or some other (wihch?) one?

Do the eight Xs have to be sequential, or can it be something like "17X 9 8 12X 15X 3 0 0X 34 21 25X 30X 0 17X 10 9X"?

Cheers.