law of the third system

[intrinseco]

I don't know if someone has already thought about this, as we know every 37 spins just (in average) 24 numbers appear.
To make my calcs easier I would use every 36 spins 24 numbers appear. in a perfect world we could say

that every  18 spins only  12 numbers appear
and every 9 spins 6 numbers appear

what I'm doing is waiting for 9 unique numbers in a row, then 4 virtual loss (none of the 9 numbers has come), and then play the 9 numbers for 3 consecutives spins.
The reason I wait 4 virtual loss is because according with my tests, after 9 unique numbers we neeed in average   4,52 spins to hit one of the 9 numbers.
Playing with flat bet, I have found an average of 1 lost every 200 spins (-27 units) and an average profit of +100
Betting this way 200 spins is not a lot because you have to consider all the spin we dont bet because to many repeaters or one of the 9 numbers hit between one of the 4 virtual losses

what do you think about all this?

[D1]

Hi

Just tested 700 live spins

end result +36

was +144 at one stage but went down to a minus but pulled back

D1.

[intrinseco]

Hi D1, thanks for posting your results....I think as soon the result is positive every system or method is good. Maybe we need to establish an average high balance session, as you said you reached +144 at some point, so it will be a good idea to stop at +100 units, finish the session and try another one hours later or maybe another day.

thanks

[Robeenhuut]

I don't know if someone has already thought about this, as we know every 37 spins just (in average) 24 numbers appear.
To make my calcs easier I would use every 36 spins 24 numbers appear. in a perfect world we could say

that every  18 spins only  12 numbers appear
and every 9 spins 6 numbers appear

what I'm doing is waiting for 9 unique numbers in a row, then 4 virtual loss (none of the 9 numbers has come), and then play the 9 numbers for 3 consecutives spins.
The reason I wait 4 virtual loss is because according with my tests, after 9 unique numbers we neeed in average   4,52 spins to hit one of the 9 numbers.
Playing with flat bet, I have found an average of 1 lost every 200 spins (-27 units) and an average profit of +100
Betting this way 200 spins is not a lot because you have to consider all the spin we don't bet because to many repeaters or one of the 9 numbers hit between one of the 4 virtual losses

what do you think about all this?

It wont work in the long run. In 12 spins 80% of the time you will get repeat but you can go without hit over 20 spins. Flat betting or progression here will fail. And 700 spins is nothing. Do at least 5000.

[TwoCatSam]

Not to be negative, but who has the time to sit around waiting for these numbers?  I like your other idea better.

Still bothers me that you're in the slammer!

Samster

[Nickmsi]

 Hello Manuel . . .


Two Cat Sam is right in that you have to wait a long time to get a bet.  Looks like you only get about 1 bet per 15 attempts.


As Robeenhuut points out 80% of the time you will get a repeat in 12 spins.


However, if you have a bot or the patience of an angel, you might be rewarded.


I tweaked your system a little.  I used the first 8 unique numbers to bet on as 8 spins is the median for when a repeat should occur.  I then waited another 4 spins before betting on the first 8 unique numbers.


I then bet maximum of 5 consecutive times and stopped on a win.  All flat betting.


This would be a long, boring test manually, so I coded the attached Excel spreadsheet (Unique 8's) to speed up the process.  I tested almost 3,000 spins for 200 actual bets.  This first test showed a modest profit of 284 units.  The sample is too small to draw any conclusions yet but it certainly is worthy of further testing.


If you or someone else would like to continue testing to 1000 bets (Van Keelen's minimum) please do so but watch the numbers and bets to see if you can find any patterns or anomalies that might improve it.


The spreadsheet is pre-loaded with both RNG spins for Zero and without Zero.  Click on cell B2 to change it.


Simple press function key F9 to get an immediate new set of 17 spins and keep pressing F9 till you see a result and then insert that result into the Insert Test Result boxes (20 of them).


If these results hold up, we can then import live spins to check them as well.


Best wishes . . . Nick

[intrinseco]

Hi Nickmsi thanks for the file, I will make more test using your excel tool.

I've made to different tests using the same 250 spins william hill.

The first test was playing as I started this idea with 9 numbers and the result was +171, then i played again but the second time I waited just for 5 unique numbers, then 5 virtual losses and then I played the 5 number for 7 consecutive spins and the result was +324.

I'm attaching a rar file with the 2 result so you can see more details, maybe is just a coincidence, i have to make more tests.

And I was thinking to add one extra rule:

let say the 9 numbers are 1,4,14,3,33,0,2,8,19, now we have to play 4 virtual spins, but what happen if we get for example the numbers 11,11,17,34, none of them are in the 9 unique numbers but there is a repeater, so in this case  i was thinking to wait one more spin before start to bet

in the 5 version number the same, if after the first 5 unique number, we found a repeater who is not in that 5 numbers we wait until spin 12 to start to bet instead spin 11.

[Nickmsi]

 Hello Manuel . . .
Glad to help.  Regarding your new rule of adding one more virtual spin when you get a repeat number in the virtual spin area, I don't think that will change anything.  However, you can observe this when testing the spreadsheet and see the repeats as they occur in the cream colored section of the spreadsheet which is the virtual spin section.
I coded your 5 unique numbers and 5 virtual numbers in the attached Unique 5's spreadsheet and did a quick 200 bets.  The results were a profit of 302 units which is just about the same as the Unique 8's, however, you do get more action but still is slow and prodding.
I found testing the Unique 5's faster and easier than the Unique 8's and as the results about the same, suggest you just test the Unique 5's.
No, I do not code in RX, I find I can quickly and easily test 100,000 or more spins in Excel.
Best wishes and good luck . . . Nick

[intrinseco]

Hi Nick thanks again for the file....

These are the results after 400 games[attachimg=1]

should be around 5.000 spins