How I think roulette can be beaten

[falkor]

Spread sheet is finished now except for one more feature to be added - deciding when not to bet based on too small a fluctuation! (spread sheet seems to work by resetting all numbers to 0 instead of 1 now)

Here's the rarest event entered into the spread sheet to determine all other figures: (this on sheet 2)


Here's what happens when Number 1 goes ahead by 2:


Here's what happens when Number 1 goes ahead by 3: (most numbers stay the same bet based on current average)


Here's what happens when Number 1 goes ahead by 3 and Numbers 2 is at 2 (rest at 1):


Make sure you change the bankroll before you start playing via sheet 1! Bet selection doesn't get better than this!!

[warrior]

   

[falkor]

If any of these 16 most fluctuated numbers were to appear (highlighted in blue) then the profit is HUGE! Even if the 17th most fluctuated number was to appear then the loss is only a couple of hundred - BUT since we've reached the maximum gap, the theory is that the ball has to land on the 2000 chip number (most fluctuated) in order for the laws of physics not to break down (or so the theory goes)! And the profit on that will equate to THIRTY THREE GRAND!


BTW, I attached the wrong results on page 1 for Red-Black fluctuation analysis; attached is the correct files.

[sean43]

Long time lurker here but your post has urged me to reply.

I'm not quite sure what your spreadsheet is showing. Are you able to explain what is going on please?

Do we enter spun numbers on sheet 1 down column A? Is the bet selection all the ones then highlighted in green?

[falkor]

Long time lurker here but your post has urged me to reply.

I'm not quite sure what your spreadsheet is showing. Are you able to explain what is going on please?

Do we enter spun numbers on sheet 1 down column A? Is the bet selection all the ones then highlighted in green?

Yep - you enter the total number of appearances in column A thereby keeping a tally. You then bet everything green (but am not sure whether to round up or round down or whether it makes any difference).

It's like an advanced labby on Numbers and reminds me of torrent ratios - after you download so much you have a new slightly higher ratio that you should maintain! Likewise, I think not betting some spins until the ratio has changed will yield even more wins. But I need to code it first to take it to the next level.

[sean43]

Yep - you enter the total number of appearances in column A thereby keeping a tally. You then bet everything green (but am not sure whether to round up or round down or whether it makes any difference).

It's like an advanced labby on Numbers and reminds me of torrent ratios - after you download so much you have a new slightly higher ratio that you should maintain! Likewise, I think not betting some spins until the ratio has changed will yield even more wins. But I need to code it first to take it to the next level.

Ahh right so total number of appearances of that number? So column A1 would be the number of times number '1' has appeared?

With a smaller bankroll would we simply not bet the green highlighted that are '0'?

Thanks for the reply

[falkor]

This system is based on a very simple method I discovered when testing red/black. I found that waiting for 10 reds in a row before betting did not affect win/lose ratio, but helped with cutting down progressions. The action that significantly transforms losing sessions into winning sessions (or more wins over losses; what every labby player is trying to achieve) is waiting for a fluctuation (or gap) in the totals.

I've attached 2 files on EC bets (3 Double streets vs. the rest of the board). Both are the same session of 1,000 spins.

Test 1 ended in more losses and a negative for all kinds of betting (though here everything is flat-betted for 1 step for the sake of this demo:
Flat-bet Grand Total: -25, Progression Grand Total: -25, Riding Progression Grand Total: -25
Total Wins: 487, Total Losses: 512

Test 2 ended with more wins and a positive - simply by betting when the fluctuation is 1 or more.
Flat-bet Grand Total: 12, Progression Grand Total: 12, Riding Progression Grand Total: 12
Total Wins: 172, Total Losses: 160

Exactly the same spin data is used for both! Now can you imagine how much more power one has when betting numbers using the same method?

[falkor]

Here's the final note with regards to developing this system further and beating roulette (if the system cannot already do that in the current state):

[RouletteKnight]

I dont quite understand what you are talking about as the majority of us, are there any examples you can show?

[nowun]

   

Ditto

[falkor]

Ahh right so total number of appearances of that number? So column A1 would be the number of times number '1' has appeared?

With a smaller bankroll would we simply not bet the green highlighted that are '0'?

Thanks for the reply

Exactly! If the green is less than 1 it means the fluctuation isn't enough to bet anything of value on (unless for some cases if you want to use 50p chips or we could use smaller amounts). And not all the greens will make profit depending on the levels of fluctuation. So the system determines not only how much to bet, but how many numbers with potential profit you'll be playing - all determined by the individual fluctuation.

In the above example, 16 numbers make profit in the best/worst case scenario (rarest event). But after only a couple of spins at the beginning of a session, there would be about 35 numbers making a profit and only 2 losing.

So the system/spreadsheet takes cares of everything except when to miss out a spin entirely, i.e. wait for more virtual losses than wins before continuing to bet (or waiting for a new higher ratio following a new high).

[falkor]

Where that downward spike is at the beginning is our maximum gap or fluctuation = 778! For Numbers this occurred in the 600,000 range. For reds/black it happens earlier and isn't as far out (probably less than 200).

[falkor]

It seems reds and blacks (ECs) are fluctuating to a similar gap as the Numbers (in the 700s gap range), but this occurs earlier for ECs in the 250,000 spin range instead of 660,000 range. Therefore, with the numbers we should have to wait for less virtual losses before betting. Red-Black/ECs are more of a steep climb up to the highest ratios, so they require waiting for larger gaps before betting. 

Spin Min Max Gap
256775 124591 125337 746

[falkor]

Nope, that is wrong. The Reds-Blacks had not reached the maximum at 250,000 range:
750503 364617 365855 1238

So they fluctuate way more than the Numbers as I originally predicted and the steepness of numbers may therefore be comparable.

EDIT: 995544 483681 485210 1529
1 million spins are not enough to determine the wild behaviour of red-black!

[vladir]

I'm not sure what you doing, but I'm curious... Need to look at the spreadsheet when I'm at home, can't do it here...