Repeaters roulette systems

[Tinsoldiers]

If I bet black for 3 spins, and win twice, do I have an "edge", or is it just a "result"?

It is just a result. But if you can do that consistently for sets of 100 spins and win 66% of time for 5 sets, then it starts edging towards edge. You don’t need a 100s of thousands of spin test.

[Steve]

Tin, you're not all there either. Waste your own time.

Or maybe go win a fortune with his invaluable advice.

[Joe]

A 40% edge, that would be impressive.

If I bet black for 3 spins, and win twice, do I have an "edge", or is it just a "result"?

He said those were long term results, so that would be his edge, if true. And I'm not saying I believe him, I don't.

[Joe]

Yes you can take shortcuts, like when looking at wheel bias, you can correlate with other data like wheel observation. But with pure statistical analysis, you can extrapolate but still because of variance the only way to know for sure is large-scale tests. Even then it's not 100% assured, but it doesn't need to be. 99.99% is close enough. Most players wouldn't have the knowledge to interpolate/extrapolate, but using automated testers over a large amount of spins is easier, and a better option for typical players.

Most of the time in the real world you don't have the data for large scale tests. Even if using an RNG there are limits. Suppose you want to test the hypothesis that after 15 reds in a row at least one black is more likely in the next few spins than after a mix of r/b in the last 15 spins. Because 15 in a row is so rare (only happening once in every 32,768 spins), it means to get only 1000 such events you need over 32 million spins. That would take a while to generate on most computers, now multiply it by 100 which is what you would need (at least) for a large-scale test. If you want more certainty you can increase the significance level to 1% or 0.1%. That generally means you need more data, but still not nearly as much as using a brute-force approach.

[Steve]

In a case like that, see what happens after 3,4,5 or 6 consecutive reds.  Its smaller scale but same result.

It helps for players to consider the logic. WHY would a trend continue or change? Has it been tested before? Etc..

[Person S]

Well, Steve, like a regular poker player, I can tell you that there is variance in this game. And there are ways to influence this. One of the tips that good players give is that you should play carefully and fold more cards for any action in order to be able to influence it.
Why not draw a parallel with roulette, there are good lanes, there are glitches.
All this goes in waves, and if a player increases the ACCURACY of bets, then the variance does not cripple him much. The cycles give us an understanding of this, all 37 will not work, maybe once every billion billions of years. Yes, there is a possibility of generally striving for E.
It remains to come up with a strategy on this basis and create a gold  🦄     
But this is all my theory, mistakes are possible ....

[ice789]

I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.

Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.

For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.

You need to set up a table like this :



In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :



Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.

You can do the test online :

link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.

Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.

check last 15 spin bet repeat  ...minum  3 numbers bet 15 spin if win no bet to 15 spin reset wait 15 spin for new trigger

i want rx code or excel check this method