bet the last 5 to show

[Steve]

I forgot you need to factor in the likelihood that the last 5 numbers may not even be the biased numbers. So you may be hitting the negative bias, which means the edge against you will be higher than -2.7%.

So say if there was a 1 pocket bias, you'd need to consider the math of the extra negative bias from the losing pockets. With everything considered, it would only help in very rare circumstances.

Putting it into perspective, say the bias was on 1st dozen (hypothetically). But the 2nd dozen spun most in recent spins, so you bet on it. Then the edge against you would be even greater than normal. Granted it would be more likely the 1st dozen would be selected because of the bias, and that's why you would have a very, very small reduction in edge. You'd need to do the math to know for sure, but I'm guessing you'd be lucky to get a 0.1-0.3% reduction in edge.

[MrJ]

I forgot you need to factor in the likelihood that the last 5 numbers may not even be the biased numbers. So you may be hitting the negative bias, which means the edge against you will be higher than -2.7%.

So say if there was a 1 pocket bias, you'd need to consider the math of the extra negative bias from the losing pockets. With everything considered, it would only help in very rare circumstances.

This seems like a pretty negative comment. Feelings may have been hurt?

Ken

[Steve]

Ken, please stop trolling this thread. Please read my response on the other thread. I'm not interested in games. And yes the jizz is a sense of humor thing. I wont tolerate the crap but it doesnt bother me like it bothers you

[Steve]

I read caleb's claims and comments from turbo. Turbo, I'm sure if you did proper testing on real spins and bet on the last 5 numbers, you will find the edge is very slightly smaller than -2.7%. So what Caleb is saying is correct. But again I'd expect the reduction in edge to be something like 0.1-0.3% (maybe even less). I wouldnt call that a significant reduction though, but I dont think Caleb called it significant anyway.

[RouletteGhost]

I posted this simply because its roulette related

In response to this thread caleb started a thread at the hell hole forum saying it is weird but true

This is the discussion i want to have

The discussion: betting last 5 lowers HE

[RouletteGhost]

If its such a small difference then it isn't worth it

Why?

Blackjack basic strategy is .5 percent HE

Best out there. And still hard to beat

[Steve]

If its such a small difference then it isn't worth it

It probably isnt worth it. But if you add a few simple parts to this strategy, then it might be worth it. For example, visual or sound confirmation of bias. Or checking attributes for dealer signature. Then you make better informed selections. But just having the blanket rule of betting last 5 numbers, at best, will only very slightly improve the odds. Not by anything significant.

Blackjack basic strategy is .5 percent HE. Best out there. And still hard to beat

If I had a 0.5% edge with roulette, I'd rather shoot myself in the head than play. That's a comparatively terrible edge. When the conditions are right in roulette, the edge can very, very easily be 5%. But more often it is between 30-50%. The problem, as it has always been, is avoiding detection. So to avoid detection, you sacrifice some edge. And your actual edge may be around 10-15% which is still far better than blackjack.

[Ross]

Many years ago Winkel posted at VLS with
stats which he claimed showed that the
best outcome was with betting on the last
eight.

Can't find it - perhaps he removed it.

However as with any method the conditions
have to be right.  If the numbers coming up
are repeats....well, you know what'll happen.

So my number-one consideration with any
method is what's the procedure for knowing
if you're likely to win (advantage in other
(dirty to some)) words.

After all an advantage of 3% is enough.

[nottophammer]

Many years ago Winkel posted at VLS with
stats which he claimed showed that the
best outcome was with betting on the last
eight.  can you remember the suggested way to bet the last 8. Vaddi way has been losing on many tests lately

Can't find it - perhaps he removed it.

However as with any method the conditions
have to be right.  If the numbers coming up
are repeats....well, you know what'll happen.

So my number-one consideration with any
method is what's the procedure for knowing
if you're likely to win (advantage in other
(dirty to some)) words.

After all an advantage of 3% is enough.

[Azim]

This will work if the wheel is faulty.

I can in my spare time, create an app that you can test for numbers going 5 back  up to 16 back you can run it against your own numbers.


It's not going to be any different.

[RouletteGhost]

Ive tried everything

Including: EC number bet

When 18 unique numbers show bet the other 18 then reset

[Azim]

Well, no need to write the app. Since you have already proved it.

[Ross]

Sorry but I don't recall if Winkel had any info about betting on
the last eight numbers.

Way back then when I was young I wrote a programme for
the last eight bet.  The neat thing is that after you've got
your last eight numbers and made a few bets - or put in
a few more numbers - you can click on the "Reset" button
and it will reload sufficient numbers to give  you - Hey Presto! -
the last eight numbers.

I recall that TwoCatSam gave this five stars at VLS.

Attached for your delectation...

[Turner]

Best out there.

lay bets in craps...0%

[Hoddini]

Bet previous 8 each spin?

I'm of the opinion if indeed this kind of betting does really lower the house edge, better do it conservatively. I'd go for betting the 8 previous results but not straight betting on the numbers. I'd combine numbers close to each other on the layout into street, corner, splits, dstreet etc so as to minimize the amount I bet on each round. It's a safer approach in my opinion while testing the theory.