Are there really 37 possible outcomes?

[Colbster]

I have a question that seems obvious on the face of it but I don't know how to approach what should be an easy answer.

We all know that during the course of 37 spins, there will be a given number of repeats (I have heard minimum of 4, but the actual number is irrelevant for this question unless the minimum is 0).  At the end of the 37 spins, we will have 4 or 6 or 10 spaces that haven't shown.  Looking back at what is now history, we could argue that those spaces were never possible options.  We didn't know what the numbers were that wouldn't hit, but we don't have to if we are playing for repeats.

If the minimum is actually 4, are not our odds of getting a hit on say 9 spaces covered 9/33 rather than 9/37?  It doesn't matter which 4 don't hit, they simply won't hit.  It becomes a discussion of misses being any of the 24 losing spots instead of the 28 "possible" spots, as we know they won't all hit.  The implications of this are fairly drastic over just a few spins.  In 1 spin, it is 27.27% vs. 24.32%.  However, over the course of 3 spins, it moves to 62.71% instead of 56.66%.  5 spins, our odds of hitting move to 88.52% against 75.18%.

If our "real" odds are not 9/37 and 28/37 respectively, but rather 9/33 and 24/33 in the worst case scenario of only 4 repeats, am I incorrect that there would be a positive expectation?

[GLC]

Oops

[Colbster]

I know it is easy to dismiss this question.  I ask it in all seriousness.

For instance, while we know that we can theoretically get 50 reds in a row, after the spins have come out, we know that they will fall into the long term statistics that act exactly how they should.  We just can't anticipate where and when they will fall.

My question is - does it matter where they fall?  We know that 4 (or more) won't hit.  It doesn't matter which numbers won't hit, all that matters is that some won't hit.  Why can't we use this to our advantage?

[GLC]

Sorry Colbster.  My oops didn't mean that I thought your idea was and oops, it was that I made a post that after reading it I realized that it was illogical so all I could do was to delete the whole message which left a blank post.  The system doesn't allow that so I added oops so I could post the deletion.

I think it is an interesting idea.  Capitalizing on it is the problem.

GLC

[Colbster]

I think that it can only be applied in that it gives credence to repeaters and not chasing those that haven't hit.  We will have numbers V,W,X,Y,and Z that won't hit as an example.  We cannot guess which of the unhit numbers those variables will ultimately be.  However, the numbers that have already hit are not variables, they are now established fact.  We know which set of numbers therefore are possible repeaters.  I'm not certain it leads to an application, it just seems to confirm my bias towards repeats in the grand scheme of things.

[Colbster]

AMK started link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=13544.0.  It got overshadowed by one of the occasional hot threads but remains the most important thread in my mind on this forum in terms of bet selection.  I have played around with the concept I laid out there with much success.  It isn't anything definitive but that is my go-to brain teaser concept.  I think this might be related but I don't quite know how.

[iggiv]

Colbster, I don't believe you can use it. If for instance you have average N repeats within M spins we are talking about laws of very large numbers. To get what you want you need so many spins played it does not make any sense. You don't want to have a couple of units won after playing tens thousands of spins. This game becomes unrealistic.

Just IMHO

[iggiv]

i checked it many times in practice, stiff patterns don't work. If you play repeaters only-- finally you will lose at the end. Even if you win for long time, at the end you will lose. There gonna be times when repeaters will go to sleep so many times you can't believe it will happen before you experience it. You will get feeling that the wheel works especially against you. That what roulette does. Any stiff patterns lose at the end.

[Colbster]

I agree that you can't use my observation that the number of possibilities might be fewer than 37, although I do think it points towards repeats instead of sleepers.  That is the only take away I can see from that avenue of discussion.

Regarding my reference to AMK's thread, if that is what you are speaking of being unusable, I strongly disagree.  I point to a comment in the thread by Ken where he expresses his liking of the fact it is "event betting" - what will happen vs. what might happen or what should happen or what could happen.  My post in that thread represent a definite way of getting a repeat during a series of spins.  The repeat is absolutely guaranteed, the trouble comes from the progression that is needed.  Money management issues plague the idea, but the premise is unassailable.

[Turner]

Colbster
Only a few people will be truely interested in this and I am one.
Number Six did reams on this in VLS. I read them all.
I think the problem lies in the fact that group's of 37 lie nested within each other and the amount hit slowly changes over time....hovering away from mean (24 hits in 37)and back.
To ignore 4 because statistically it is negligible is what quantum physicists do.
There are more likely events....however still rare ( like 29 hits in 37) that can be considered.

[klw]

I'm with colbster and Turner here. I loved that AMK thread and did quite a bit of testing on that bet selection. You do need a filter , I only attacked for a certain amount of spins / chips as it definitely needs a stop loss and overall it was profitable. You'll see the sweet spot emerge as you test it. The only reason I didn't carry on with it was, as with all inside number systems the variance can be frustrating and large drawdowns and sitting through many spins til it becomes profitable again is just not me.

[Turner]

Just read AMKs post in which I feature as a mad scientist who talks too much. When they make the film I will be played by Christopher Lloyd.

I have no memory of typing any of that.

Im not sure how I make the assumption that all these observations in inside numbers will correllate all nice and even into dozens.

Its one over simplification too many...diluting an already tentative premise.

Turner

[Proofreaders2000]

In theory your premise kills the "cold numbers will hit" theory.

Since we know that usually all 37/38 numbers will not hit in
37/38 spins chances are the unique numbers are most likely to hit.

Paradox is each spin is independent, so
there shouldn't be any bias with hitting numbers.

[Colbster]

I agree that there is no bias hitting numbers.  What I wonder is if there is a bias away from the W,X,Y and Z numbers that won't hit in a stretch.  I understand that the spins are independent of the past and the future.  Where I get interested is that they are only hypothetical as long as they haven't been spun.  It is something like Schrodinger's Cat - each number is both hit and unhit until the spin is complete.  We treat it as both, but in the end the cat is actually either alive or dead.  The spaces either get a hit or don't in 37.  Once we look back at a set of 37/38 spins, a specific number didn't hit and, in retrospect, could not have hit.  I might be a lunatic but I think its a nod towards continuing my (our) pursuit towards repeats rather than sleepers.

[Colbster]

There are more likely events....however still rare ( like 29 hits in 37) that can be considered.

There are more likely events and those help our cause.  If at least 4 hit but 8 actually do, we have more opportunities to win our bets and maximize profits while lessening drawdown.  It is fortunate that 4 won't happen because it makes the numbers more manageable.  Like klw said, the variance and bankroll considerations can be painful as I was playing it.  I never (ever, ever, ever) didn't get the hit.  It was just a matter of how do we handle our BR until it inevitably comes.  Playing to a profit on one hit was expensive and ran afoul of table limits.  Somehow, I think there is a Lanky's 6-leveler progression or something that could be very well suited to this.  That isn't my area of expertise, though, and I struggle to optimize the money part of this.