Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[Blueprint]

and how will that help?

[Person S]

and how will that help?

Quote rrbb: How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

In the normal game will not bring benefits, must be the key. You need to look for a connection - it's like pipets are hard. I'm still fighting...

[Blueprint]

I believe he called it a 'magical relation'

[ozon]

Maybe someone can give me an answer here
Once Priyanka wrote that if EC bets repeatet in cycle of 2 spins is some kind of change in probability that the next decision will be the opposite of the EC which was the repeater
I can not find this post, but I am interested in the opinion of people who conducted tests of Priyanka's theorems, or indeed there was some increase of the edge on the side of this EC.

[Firefox]

Maybe someone can give me an answer here
Once Priyanka wrote that if EC bets repeatet in cycle of 2 spins is some kind of change in probability that the next decision will be the opposite of the EC which was the repeater
I can not find this post, but I am interested in the opinion of people who conducted tests of Priyanka's theorems, or indeed there was some increase of the edge on the side of this EC.

Sounds like a theory, def not a theorem!

I tested that for someone 20 years back. It's complete rubbish, the chance remains the same.

You may find a collection of Priyanka's ramblings here:

link:://clinandrdria5.rssing.com/chan-4018025/all_p235.html

Maybe the post is linked or copied. Good luck!

[ozon]

Of course, theory
Sometimes, as I write quickly, I do basic mistakes.
English is not my basic language

[ozon]

Firefox
Maybe in your search, you have found a bet selection, which in some way gave an edge to the EC.
I am referring to subtle deviations that we could prove by  tests

[Firefox]

If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent so much time on VB in the interim, and casinos would probably not be still offering roulette as a game!

I can see it may be an enticing concept. If you turn up at a wheel and all you have to go on are some previous spins. It's natural that one may want to predict results from that, or at least get an edge somehow.

The fact remains that each spin is a fresh independent trial. Aside from clocking spin data and betting late, only by recording thousands of spins and looking for bias, or looking for short term bias due to tilt and dealer consistency have I ever been able to get an edge.

And these type of edges always apply to numbers and sectors, never to dozens or even chances.

[Blueprint]

ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50% 

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.

[Firefox]

ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50%

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.

So, give us a sequence of 1's and 2"s where you think the probability of 1 or 2 following that sequence is greater than 50%.

[MoneyT101]

ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50%

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.

Are you really trying to help? Or just trying to get someones attention?

[MoneyT101]

Those actually looking for information...

Break down what you’re looking at. 

Why do repeats happen from most recent numbers?

How can you use this?  Don’t try any testing....just THINK and try to solve

[MoneyT101]

Also if you studied cycles you would know  for example that the dozen that defines the cycle wins over 60% .... but each partition has its own set of stats to it.

I’m not just throwing numbers at you! This information can be used..

If I gave you the answer you would think it’s logical..... that’s how simple it is

Now I’m sure there’s more complicated and more ways to make it better.  But if youre here to just make a winning bet that works for you. 

Think of the info you see, how to use.  Forget about odds and trying to win.  Forget about zero for now.

Just look at the info and see what happens.

[Blueprint]

Are you really trying to help? Or just trying to get someones attention?

All I've ever done is tried to help those willing to also do the work.  I'm not the one here for attention - I'm not a 4 year old.

[Blueprint]

So, give us a sequence of 1's and 2"s where you think the probability of 1 or 2 following that sequence is greater than 50%.

Read it again so you're clear on what it is actually saying.

11
121
122

or

22
212
211

67%, math boy.