1 sleeper

[Jeromin]

I often see people here talking about how when betting on a sleeper it can sleep for 400 or more spin and dismiss any sleeper system out of hand. Sure it's possible, almost anything is possible in Roulette. But it seemed strange to me, as I hardly ever see Wiesbaden sessions of over 200 spins with unhit numbers. So I decided to do a admittedly very small test. 31 days of August '13, table 3.

lowest number of shows.

200-299 spins:
Once: 2 sessions
twice: 10 sessions
3 times:8 sessions
4 times: 2 sessions.

300-395(highest) spins:
Once: 0 sessions
twice: 1 sessions
3 times: 3 session
4 times: 5 sessions.

I also checked table 4 looking only for 0 shows and one shows. I found no shows once (252 spins session) and one repeat 4 times.

So in 62 sessions in two tables with 200 to 400 spins, I had a number not show only once.

So if say you pick a number after a cycle of 37 spins, out of 13 unhit numbers, you have a chance in 62 (based on this sample) that one of the 13 numbers won't show in a 200 to 400 spin session. Up to 300 spins it will show 2 to 3 times some 80% of the time. From 300 to 400 spins, it will show up 3 to 4 times about 90% of the time.
13*62 is 806 so picking one or two sleepers, you could end up losing after a long session once every 400/800 sessions. You would get only one hit, though not necessarily at the end of the session about 1 in 10 sessions.

Just something to ponder.

Jeromin

PS: I shorter sessions, under 200 spins, multiple no shows are common.

[rouletteKEY]

In my experience it is better not to chase a sleeper...but rather to play the number after it awakens.  This goes for dozens, columns, streets, etc (maybe not so much on EC...but that's more on me because I just don't like the recovery ability if you get behind on an EC)

I still prefer playing just a number or two...but I know most people don't have the patience and need more excitement...

On the 00 wheel there is an even chance based on the wheel sector dominated by the 2nd column I would entertain for fun if the opportunity was right...that being said...I still prefer a number or two straight up...but I don't like chasing sleepers.  You may not have seen a number sleep for 300 spins...until you start playing it on the 40th spin...just sayin'

[Jeromin]

RouletteKey, what I set out to investigate was if the risk of no hits in a long session was significant. Chasing one number, sleeper or recent wake up, is a patience game, anyway. As to your strategy, the numbers are clear (again, based on a small sample): If I played those 62 sessions, chasing a sleeper, I'd lose once in 62 sessions (1.61%). If I chased a number who hit once, the loss ratio goes up to 6/62 (9.68%).
Is also interesting that a system designed around a minimum number of repeats of  2 and 3 times in 200 to 300 spins, and 3 to four repeats in 300 to 400 spins has
80% and 90% success odds, respectively.

Jeromin

[Turner]

But in real play....you dont know which part of the sine wave you have jumped in at.
Its a bit like saying this.
I have observed for 20 nights that at 3:10am..there are no cars on the motorway....so tonight....I will walk across the motorway .....at 3:10am...with a blindfold and earplugs.

[Jeromin]

But in real play....you don't know which part of the sine wave you have jumped in at.
Its a bit like saying this.
I have observed for 20 nights that at 3:10am..there are no cars on the motorway....so tonight....I will walk across the motorway .....at 3:10am...with a blindfold and earplugs.

Yes Turner, if by "real play" you mean casual play. These are Wiesbaden numbers, real enough. So if you take the minimum point in the sine wave, which is when you start tracking down numbers and all numbers are sleepers, then what these results are saying is that the curve will be at its max, ie one number hit, after less than 400 spins,  about 99% of the time. I take my cue from the likes of MrJ, Winkel and TurboGenius, who understand the length of this sine curve to be in the low hundreds. From this understanding they draw the right conclusion: the only way to fight the casinos is with their own weapons, patience and large funds, their strategy, pick very few numbers and play them for hours on end. The opposite of fun. Casinos don't have fun, either.

Playing for 50 or 100 spins with modest funds, based on the some patters of the last 20 spins or so is the  style of most "real play" gamblers. The fun style. We all know how that works out.

Jeromin 

[Turner]

don't get me wrong....I agree.....and if I never left the house because there are always odds of rain....I would never get anywhere.
There is argument though that this approach is admitting that its just luck then. If you don't get run over on the motorway....you could start convincing yourself it was down to your analysis....not just pure luck.
Do you get my point?
And...you may not agree...but believe it or not....weisbaden spins are not real play. The amount of days I've spent on RX with an idea and won hundreds over and over....then die in the casino.

I always run Rx well into the spins before stating testing

[Jeromin]

There is argument though that this approach is admitting that its just luck then.
Do you get my point?

No, I honestly don't. This is a probabilistic approach. There is a probability of failure, somewhere around 1%. I am not saying this is a winner 100% of the time. Whether a system can be devised that can win with a long term 1% fail, is for another thread to investigate. I am just collecting data. Such system would contemplate scenarios like two fail sessions in a row and other common short term events, in other words, if you compare failing once to getting run over by a car, you are aiming for 0% fail and the roulette will punish you.   This comes down, like I said, to having the casino's approach. A casino can handle multiple gamblers having spectacular luck on any given day. At the end of the year, if they go back, they will give back all their winnings. Patience and funds.

And Wiesbaden numbers are real numbers. They look fine to me. I've had weirder results, positively hostile results, specially online, less so in B&M. What is not real is to design a system based on sets of 300 spins and massive funds and then play a couple of hours with a couple hundred. We've all been there. 20 step progression that works in 10,000 spins, then we get to step 16 and we panic: turns out it's actually money we are not comfortable losing and those 15 loses in a row  have dented our confidence.

Jeromin

[vundarosa]

The problem i see here is that your base unit will be so small compared to your BR that the rare loss will be a major set back. The earnings in the multiple sections might not be able to offset the loss....that's one of the reasons i believe people don't follow sleepers...and like you hinted, double losses are difficult to handle...

vundarosa

[rouletteKEY]

The problem i see here is that your base unit will be so small compared to your BR that the rare loss will be a major set back.

vundarosa

vundarosa....yup...you got it

Not denying Jeromin that it will usually win eventually at a high rate and maybe win enough along the way to cover the occassional monster loss

But...you have to play a table with a huuuge spread between minimum bet and table limit to possibly have to carry a progression hundreds of bets deep...then you have to have the Bank and Guts to play it out...but it also has be a heavy enough progression to make the time and money invested worth it in the end.

That's alot of things that have to go your way to "potentially" make a lot of money.  Just seems like there are better ways to achieve the end...

But if everybody bet the same way and consistently won...they'd change the rules