Thread Rating:

Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 6417
November 22nd, 2020 at 3:31:24 AM permalink
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

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.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
Joined: Nov 16, 2020
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 6
November 22nd, 2020 at 1:12:57 PM permalink
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...


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
Joined: Feb 12, 2018
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 1784
November 23rd, 2020 at 5:56:00 AM permalink
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.
Joined: Nov 16, 2020
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 6
November 27th, 2020 at 11:21:26 AM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: