EC 18

[thelaw]

This bet selection is based on tracking for 18 unique numbers and then using the other 18 as an EC bet. After each new hit, cross off first number in the line.

Ex. - using live spins from spielbank-wiesbaden :

------start tracking
22
(0)
6
21
34
4
30
33
(30)
(6)
11
36
(4)
7
27
25
9
16
(16)
(27)
24
29
(7)
33
3
-----start betting all numbers not listed above -excluding zeros
3     loss
31   win (cross off first number in line (22) and add 31 to the end)
30   loss
10   win (same as above)
30   loss
7     loss
36   loss
15   win(same as above)
31   loss
27   loss
28   win (same as above)
14   win (same as above)

Matched with a good progression, this may be a winner with proper mm

[ati]

It's funny in roulette that when a system tells you to bet on A an other system will tell you to bet on B instead.
Recently I played the direct opposite of what you have just suggested. After 18 unique numbers I started betting always the last 18 unique numbers as an EC bet, with D'Alembert progression. Because there are always repeats in the last 18 numbers, sometimes it takes several hundred spins to see 18 numbers with no repeat.
I did win some money with it, but I didn't work out the math so far to see if this has a better chance of avoiding losing streaks compared to a simple outside EC bet.

edit:
I played some more, and looks like D'Alembert is not the way to go, since that relies on winning streaks, and I had too many LLWLLW series. After 50 spins I finally hit four wins in a row, and left the table with profit, but the bet size started to be uncomfortable by then.

[RouletteGhost]

Dangerous martingale can be used with this i think

[Turner]

I said this 3 days ago
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15057.msg127969#msg127969

The wheel continuously produces extremes, but not the few groups on the carpet. They are just several groups of numbers out of millions..

The conundrum is, do you continue betting it because the wheel produces extremes, or bet the opposite as RTM.

Back to 50:50 again.

[RouletteGhost]

In 37 spins there will be a minimum of 24 unique numbers right?

[Turner]

In 37 spins there will be a minimum of 24 unique numbers right?

No.....
Unique numbers to me are without repeats.

I think you mean Law of the Third. Its a Law alright, but not "of the third"

The "third" refers to normal distribution of 37 numbers and the average is 24 hits and 13 no shows.

But thats just the average, and 68% of results will fall within +/- 1 SD of the average.

1SD happens all the time...but over long periods, not as much as the average.

The rule is 68 - 95 - 99.7

So you can see here  4.7% will be 3SD from the average.

Thats possible !!, and those results are far from 2/3 vs 1/3

I really want to plot 1 million spins showing how the amount that hit in 37 changes.

I just need some spare time.

[nottophammer]

plot a million spins, with all your maths you get the answers?

But you'd still be none the wiser to the next spin

[nottophammer]

would maths help in square touching side

[Turner]

plot a million spins, with all your maths you get the answers?

But you'd still be none the wiser to the next spin

You misunderstand
Plot it to show how unpredictable it is..and isnt of much use.

[nottophammer]

Hi Turner just back from upton park,COYI.
You misunderstand
Plot it to show how unpredictable it is..and isnt of much use.
exactly
Turner your the math guy oh and Dane.
Use to be a bet posted on internet think by a disgruntled casino employee, where you waited for one of the dozens miss for five spins,oh yes said they were a computer programmer for the casino,so must be rng.
Well when one missed for five they said guaranteed to come in,in next 11 spins, well it played well for months and months, but now could take 30 or more spins. Seen it take that long on smartlive as bruv has a mate who played it.

Now would Maths be able to give an answer to why it should take that long on a live wheel,belive it on rng as the watchers back at HQ would see people playing and wait x amount of spins to catch the win,so they'd increase the losses to catch em out.

I know you'll have the math saying X * 12/37 or something like it,so i guess i'm asking you why you'd think this would happen in reality,it seems unbelievable  to miss for so long.

[Turner]

Hi Turner just back from upton park,COYI.
You misunderstand
Plot it to show how unpredictable it is..and isnt of much use.
exactly
Turner your the math guy oh and Dane.
Use to be a bet posted on internet think by a disgruntled casino employee, where you waited for one of the dozens miss for five spins,oh yes said they were a computer programmer for the casino,so must be rng.
Well when one missed for five they said guaranteed to come in,in next 11 spins, well it played well for months and months, but now could take 30 or more spins. Seen it take that long on smartlive as bruv has a mate who played it.

Now would Maths be able to give an answer to why it should take that long on a live wheel,belive it on rng as the watchers back at HQ would see people playing and wait x amount of spins to catch the win,so they'd increase the losses to catch em out.

I know you'll have the math saying X * 12/37 or something like it,so i guess i'm asking you why you'd think this would happen in reality,it seems unbelievable  to miss for so long.

Im not a "Maths guy" I just believe in Maths.

The reason it seems unbelievable for a dozen to sleep 30 spins is because its rare.

The fallacy is believing in rare meaning it wont happen to me.

A dozen sleeping for 30 spins has a probability. It is 0.00078%

That will happen once every 128,200 spins.....so I am safe to avoid it for that many spins right?.....wrong !

It could be that wheels 128,199th spin since it last happened (although it isnt that predictable)

The odds of dying in a chartered plane crash are around 25Million to 1.

So as long as I fly less than 25 million flights, I am safe, right?

You know the answer to that.

[nottophammer]

spot on,
bros mate lost twice, after the 1st loss within a few spins another killer run started, it can just happen, but really