EC by deduction

[thelaw]

I'm currently studying the effects of using the last 18 non-repeat numbers to create an EC group.

So my question is simple : How many  max repeats (from the last 18 numbers) will we see in a row before a new (unique) number?

In my short tests, the most I've encountered is 4 so far, but I'm sure they can get much higher.

If the max number of repeats is 7-10, then we may be able to use an aggressive progression starting after 4 virtual losses.

Not sure if this is any better than any other EC, hence a notepad topic.

Thoughts?

[nottophammer]

luck of the Irish will be able to tell you.
He ran 2 million spins giving 36'443 games on 37-1 down. I was interested in 9numbers out of those games his answers were compareable to my manual test figures.
So my manual testing says 18 uniques you could get 10 repeats,19 unique 11 repeats.

[thelaw]

luck of the Irish will be able to tell you.
He ran 2 million spins giving 36'443 games on 37-1 down. I was interested in 9numbers out of those games his answers were compareable to my manual test figures.
So my manual testing says 18 uniques you could get 10 repeats,19 unique 11 repeats.

I'm thinking more along the lines of charting for 18 unique spins (so maybe 18-28 spins roughly) and then betting the other 18 as an EC bet.

The progression would probably need to be a Marti of some sort starting with 4+ virtual losses (depends on the max number of spins without a new number.....8,9,10?)

Thanks!

[ddarko]

I'm thinking more along the lines of charting for 18 unique spins (so maybe 18-28 spins roughly) and then betting the other 18 as an EC bet.

The progression would probably need to be a Marti of some sort starting with 4+ virtual losses (depends on the max number of spins without a new number.....8,9,10?)

Thanks!

How many wins/opportunities to bet will you miss out on with those 4+ virtual losses ?

[thelaw]

How many wins/opportunities to bet will you miss out on with those 4+ virtual losses ?

This is always the trade-off for any progression. I personally prefer a simple Marti approach based on max losses

[ddarko]

This is always the trade-off for any progression. I personally prefer a simple Marti approach based on max losses

Well that was kinda my point, depending on the wins/opportunities to bet you miss out on, should help you decide
how many virtual losses you do/don't require.....

From my POV it's data worth finding as it could affect your wins & losses to a high degree....

[thelaw]

Well that was kinda my point, depending on the wins/opportunities to bet you miss out on, should help you decide
how many virtual losses you do/don't require.....

From my POV it's data worth finding as it could affect your wins & losses to a high degree....

Definitely something to consider

[LuckoftheIrish]

I just tested 1 million RNG single zero spins.  Here is the table:

1   17405        49.04060184
2   8765           24.6964019
3   4571           12.87932152
4   2272           6.401622947
5   1202           3.386774112
6   652           1.837085458
7   291           0.819926178
8   173           0.487447522
9   80           0.225409259
10   37           0.104251782
11   13           0.036629005
12   13           0.036629005
13   8           0.022540926
14   3           0.008452847
15   3           0.008452847
16   2           0.005635231
17   1           0.002817616
   35491   100

There was 35 491 sessions.  Number on the left is the spin where one of the 18 sleepers hit for the first time.

Next column is how many times it happened and final is the percent.

As you can see the worst case was hitting on spin 17.

[thelaw]

I just tested 1 million RNG single zero spins.  Here is the table:

1   17405        49.04060184
2   8765           24.6964019
3   4571           12.87932152
4   2272           6.401622947
5   1202           3.386774112
6   652           1.837085458
7   291           0.819926178
8   173           0.487447522
9   80           0.225409259
10   37           0.104251782
11   13           0.036629005
12   13           0.036629005
13   8           0.022540926
14   3           0.008452847
15   3           0.008452847
16   2           0.005635231
17   1           0.002817616
   35491   100

There was 35 491 sessions.  Number on the left is the spin where one of the 18 sleepers hit for the first time.

Next column is how many times it happened and final is the percent.

As you can see the worst case was hitting on spin 17.

Great info - much appreciated!

So does that mean that there were 18 numbers that hit for 34 spins in a row (the original 18 + 16 repeats)?

Thanks!

[GLC]

Wow!  Mathematical odds are pretty close to right on when you have a million spin set.

I just can't see a way to capitalize on it.

GLC

[thelaw]

Wow!  Mathematical odds are pretty close to right on when you have a million spin set.

I just can't see a way to capitalize on it.

GLC

If I'm reading the table correctly, then we could track for 18, then wait for 4 virtual losses (happens about every 25 spins), then 4 step Marti (no further-would give us 8 total losses).

Each win = 1 unit

Each loss = 15 units (based on the table above it will happen less than 1% of the time-8 losses in a row)

........of course it could also happen on the first try

[thelaw]

Although, I'm sure the same could be said about any EC bet using a similar table.

I was just wondering if tracking for 18 unique numbers would give us a more even distribution overall.

[LuckoftheIrish]

Great info - much appreciated!

So does that mean that there were 18 numbers that hit for 34 spins in a row (the original 18 + 16 repeats)?

Thanks!

Yes, I believe that is correct. 

You are very welcome

[LuckoftheIrish]

I tried this idea a few years ago.  I remember doing testing and finding sometimes that 18 numbers could hit for 50+ straight spins. 

[thelaw]

I tried this idea a few years ago.  I remember doing testing and finding sometimes that 18 numbers could hit for 50+ straight spins.

I'm confused....is 50 in a row like the legendary 35 reds in a row?

Based on your testing, would waiting for 4 losses after tracking 18 unique numbers be the same as just betting against any 4  EC losses?

Thanks!