37 spins, 1 Dozen Will Always Have 2 Repeating Numbers In It

[Skakus]

What I mean is you are always within a 37 spin window because it shifts along with you after every spin.

That fact mitigates the applicability of the 37 spin cycle.

I’m not saying you can’t look back to recent repeaters for a trigger of some sort, just that it probably doesn’t help or there probably are better pointers than a rigid 37 spin limit.

[Carsch]

i got you.

[gorki]

There are two certainties here,


1) There will always be repeaters.

D1 -no repetition

[MrJ]

I've always been on the fence with this...... 37/38 spin cycle stuff. Lets say we start to keep track and 10 spins into it, we have the 23 hit twice.

Would (or could) those 23's be part of the 37 spins OR those 23's could be part of a PRIOR 37 spin cycle, which is now at its tail end. EVERY number that hits, is the beginning, the end and the middle of SOMEBODYS 37 spin cycle. I'm not saying I'm against it, just sayin it can get quite confusing.

Ken

[Colbster]

My answer to the confusion (at least as related to this particular thread) is to track until I get my hit and then backtrack to the spin immediately AFTER whichever spin would have given us 2 repeats.

For example

[reveal]
18
------------------------
4
23
17
19
22
5
14
29
36
0
8
22
1
22
18

Even though the 18 is the most recent double, we go as far back as we can without having another repeat in the list.
[/reveal]

By doing this, we minimize tracking.  It gives us the most information possible while retaining a single repeat, allowing us to be constantly after the initial tracking stage.  As a variation, rather than tracking back until there is only 1 repeat total, we can track back until there is only 1 repeat per dozen.  This gives us more information typically, although we will usually have more dozens active right off, driving up our hit percentage but also giving us the fewest spins before it starts marching up the progression.

[Turner]

I've always been on the fence with this...... 37/38 spin cycle stuff. Lets say we start to keep track and 10 spins into it, we have the 23 hit twice.

Would (or could) those 23's be part of the 37 spins OR those 23's could be part of a PRIOR 37 spin cycle, which is now at its tail end. EVERY number that hits, is the beginning, the end and the middle of SOMEBODYS 37 spin cycle. I'm not saying I'm against it, just sayin it can get quite confusing.

Ken

Thats the true dilemma for sure

[vladir]

I still don't see how this can be effectivly used...

[Carsch]

I've always been on the fence with this...... 37/38 spin cycle stuff. Lets say we start to keep track and 10 spins into it, we have the 23 hit twice.

Would (or could) those 23's be part of the 37 spins OR those 23's could be part of a PRIOR 37 spin cycle, which is now at its tail end. EVERY number that hits, is the beginning, the end and the middle of SOMEBODYS 37 spin cycle. I'm not saying I'm against it, just sayin it can get quite confusing.

Ken

I'm thinking that any 37 spin cycle will do. Of course, the person who did the test is the one who could confirm this.
Actually, upon further thinking, it does make sense that it would apply to any 37 spin cycle.

[Jeromin]

I went over 100 sets of 50 spins from Wiesbaden, betting on the last number and adding new numbers as they show up, stopping on a win. Over 90% hit repeat in under 14 spins, once in 17 spins, twice in 19 spin. Not sure what kind of progression could accommodate this, it gets expensive in a hurry. Maybe stop or reduce the increase after 14 spins.

Jeromin

[Colbster]

That's why it's critical to use qualifying of numbers to determine where to bet.  This is the single method that I keep coming back to and that I believe has the most potential.  If we know that at least one dozen will have two repeats, we qualify by waiting for a dozen to get one repeat.  At that point, we can bet on just those numbers that have hit in that particular dozen or dozens where there have already been repeats this cycle.  It keeps bet numbers to a bare minimum, allowing us to last longer.

The problem I have had in the past with this is that we bump up against table limits when we have too many numbers to play at a time, particularly when each dozen has had exactly one repeat and we have all hit numbers so far to cover.  This situation rectifies itself quickly, with a couple repeats clearing the table over the course of a couple spins.  Until then, I have two possible solutions:

1. Only play when there are fewer than X spaces to play.  This gives us greater returns for our hits but it does give us periods where we are not betting and we can be missing hits along the way that might lessen our drawdown.

2. Play up to the maximum allowed on the table, regardless of whether we are covering our drawdown in a single hit.  I have always played to be positive after a single win, but a leveler could easily be used to solve this conundrum.  Additionally, you could just keep a running drawdown tally and carry it through to the more profitable spins that will come on the heels of a dry spell.  As the stated statistics imply, 4 repeats is a bare minimum and we are likely to get many more hits than this on average.  When we have a slow spot, carry on.  The down side: Bankroll.

[Turner]

Colbster, That was a long think !

Close on 2 years

[Colbster]

2 years to branch off in numerous other directions, get some feedback, start a business, and sit back down to the computer to say this still makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.  Or maybe my brain just fires a little slower than some 

[amk]

Hello again Colbster!

Havent checked the forum for a while and wanted to check my old messages when I saw this thread which I started apparently 2 years ago and you just posted today! I fully agree with you on the methods strength.

Theres definitely something to this!

[MrJ]

I made this comment a LONG TIME AGO, it goes for ANY roulette method >>

There are only TWO choices (imo).....

We are either betting on unhit numbers (for whatever reason) from the last/future "X" number of spins

*OR*

We are betting on already hit numbers (for whatever reason) from the last/future "X" number of spins.

I dont see much of a grey area on this. I wish there was more certainty in roulette (lol), our number(s) will either hit or they won't. (no kidding Ken). We will either go home with a profit or we won't (no kidding Ken). Its very tough to PLAN a SURE WINNING day at the casino. This damn game will even kick you in the nuts while you lay helpless on the casino floor.

Its a very non-bias game. It doesn't care about your race, gender, religion, finances, politics, age etc.

The job of the roulette ball is to slice your throat and watch you bleed out. Sorry for being so blunt but its the truth.

Ken

[Proofreaders2000]

The job of the roulette ball is to slice your throat and watch you bleed out. Sorry for being so blunt but its the truth.

Very true.  I just tried this theory (in extensive testing) and it doesn't hold up.  :q