Calculation of Winning % edge

Greetings
I have a roulette bet that has been tested on 30 sessions of 100 spins and shows flat staking earnings of +0.723 units per spin over 3000 spins. This is on a single zero roulette that features 37 numbers.
Please advise what is the winning edge I have over the house casino playing live.
Cheers
R.

Quote: XXVV

Greetings
I have a roulette bet that has been tested on 30 sessions of 100 spins and shows flat staking earnings of +0.723 units per spin over 3000 spins. This is on a single zero roulette that features 37 numbers.
Please advise what is the winning edge I have over the house casino playing live.
Cheers
R.

You don't.
The house has a winning edge of 1/37=2.7%

Quote: XXVV

3000 spins

this is a completely inadequate sample size

If I did this right, this would be a 25.9 standard deviation event betting even money or a 6.6 standard deviation event betting one number per spin.

Quote: XXVV

Greetings
I have a roulette bet that has been tested on 30 sessions of 100 spins and shows flat staking earnings of +0.723 units per spin over 3000 spins. This is on a single zero roulette that features 37 numbers.
Please advise what is the winning edge I have over the house casino playing live.

As already answered, your "winning edge" is -2.7% if all even-money bets lose the entire bet on a zero (or -1.35% if you lose only half).

Questions:

1. You say you earn 0.723 units per spin; how many units are you betting per spin?

2. You say "flat staking"; does this mean every bet is the same, or at least the total amount bet is the same (but possibly on different numbers), on every spin?

Where do I purchases the system?

If you have a $10 bet per spin, and 100 spins per session, your bet total would be $1,000. With a +0.723 unit win per spin, you'll be up $723 per 100 spins. After 30 sessions, you'll be up $21,690 out of $30,000 bet.
$51,690/$30,000 = 172.3% payback

Thanks for reply..

1. 1 unit per spin per target bet
2. Yes every bet is the same on 9 numbers as targets (per set).
3. I play multiple sets of up to five featuring wheel sections for example or finales ( number ending) - always in 4 divisions.

Ha

You need me to prove this works by providing a set of outcomes you have witnessed and I will send my results to you - 100 spin sample.

Thank you for reply.

My data is based on no progression, just level/ flat staking.

I have 9 numbers to target on a French Wheel ( single zero) playing 1 set.

In professional play I often use 3 sets ad other overlapping techniques but I completed my study on 30 independent sets of 100 spins.

Whether I play one set or three the rate of earning is + 0.723 ( average) per spin per set.

The reason my bet wins is that I use 'Cluster Analysis' identifying clustering tendencies into 4 groups of 9 numbers ( with one number excluded).

I was trying to establish what is the 'edge' in my favor.

I guess your answer above states that.

My sample is 30 sessions of 100 spins and taking it session by session I had been advised 30 sessions was a suitable statistical sample.
27 of the sessions won, and two were small losses, one a little more- arrived at by testing 5 sets (ie 5x100 spins) x 30 sessions.

Thanks.

I am totally sincere.

I live in New Zealand.

Kind Regards
R.

Quote: XXVV

In professional play I often use 3 sets ad other overlapping techniques but I completed my study on 30 independent sets of 100 spins.

Whether I play one set or three the rate of earning is + 0.723 ( average) per spin per set.

The reason my bet wins is that I use 'Cluster Analysis' identifying clustering tendencies into 4 groups of 9 numbers ( with one number excluded).

I was trying to establish what is the 'edge' in my favor.

I am totally sincere.

I live in New Zealand.

Kind Regards
R.

Hi,
No doubt you live in New Zealand and you are sincere. I envy you living there :o)
However, unless you have found an unbalanced wheel, your system is of no consequence. It does not give you an edge and it goes no way towards defeating the house edge. I smile when you call yourself a professional player. You have won over a few spins. that is all.

Amusing. I see your listed hobby is 'cynic'. Unfortunately not an open mind then? Thank you for your kind note regarding my stated sincerity and kind words re living in NZ. I have a fabulous boutique casino where I play so am very fortunate. My data is actually based on hundreds of thousands of live spins over a 30 year period, and the recent update test I conducted was actually 5 sets of 3000, so still a tiny 15,000 spins but the 30 independent sessions (5x100 spins each) are actually a statistically sound sample size. You can smile over my 'professionalism' but that is just your cynical persona, and you probably don't really mean that as I have considerable experience in roulette ( yes multiples of the required 10,000 hours) and have been blessed with fabulous genuinely professional teachers in UK and Australia. All I actually wanted from your wonderful access to collective experience on this site was a commentary on calculation of 'edge' and one correspondent was most helpful.

How you can arrive at some of the statements in your response beats me, rather like standard responses to annoying cliche trivia questions. But my question as I state is sincere.

Never mind, I hugely respect you for your administrative work and your team's fabulous website.

I certainly have no intention of over-elaborating on my work or details of my work which was originally produced in collaboration with a professional statistician all those years ago in Sydney. I do not think you would smile at my stating his profession. I stated my original question on the basis of one bet per spin (level/ flat staking) where I target 9 numbers on a 6 spin cycle or until hit, and stop at that stage. Play resumes after a suitable statistically proven pause and trigger to enable a second 'recovery phase' where all or part of the initial loss is recovered.

Depending on whether hit on first spin attempt after target pre-selection or not, outcomes are...

+27
+18
+9
0
-9
-18

0r if fail -54 units and pause

Recovery Phase consists of 3 independent strikes on the re-appearing target so that at best 3x +27 can be achieved, but generally the re-tracement loss damage is repaired. This helps net returns obviously but the effectiveness of my method lies in the ability to recognise clustering and takes advantage of the change of state between cluster and non cluster.

Also I play up to 5 sets independently ( 5 attacks such as Wheel, Finales, Streets etc).

The flat staking was done for ease of calculation purposes for the test. This test repeats test I conducted 5 and 10 years ago which showed similar results but I have now added further refinements through experience.

In live play I target very short cycles only and use a short progression for maximum efficiency. I pause and stop frequently. The flat stake test ploughed on 100 spins regardless, so my usual play is much more efficient.

Nevertheless the results of my 30 session test on 5 x 100 spins shows a best result in Finales Set at around + 1.5 units per spin. Other sets were less effective but all positive. The average of the 5 sets was +0.723 units per spin/ set.

My technique is completely outside of conventional roulette play and uses Cluster Analysis Theory from my work in Statistics.

My notes above will be meaningless if you are not prepared to accept that there are very different ways of looking at roulette data and in fact any randomly generated streams of outcomes, bring short cycle order to apparent randomness.

Thanks for your responses and I hope this reply has some interest for you and readers.
Best Wishes
R.

ive always wondered why there was never a roulette section in this place .. and honestly the attitudes of the people who think they can win are most likely the reason.

Yes a roulette section would be excellent. My experience is based on winning, after early years of losses as one would expect. This is very different to 'thinking' that I can win. Experience is the best teacher.