Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

((I take the first column as we are only betting on repeats, so we see that we have 9 repeats in this column.
And now our real average is 392/9 = 43.5, the edge of the house has swallowed us. These are my primitive calculations...))

I was counting on the secondary gap and not on the actual hit of a nr but sometimes there also was hard bcs I am dealing with 4 nr at that moment.

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

I didn´t say he is not a smart guy. I just said is not smart enough. That is a difference.
If the next sentence belongs to me as well:
You could know everything if you asked me. But neither you nor Person S did.
You just complaint.

1/  I thought you were a smart guy. But I failed
1b/ I was thinking for asking you but at the time I am reading some of your posts and my next step was to ask you for (help) {as I did with 6th and never respond}.


What the hell are you awaiting? A fully explained system that works with every spin, 1000 spins a day 7 days a week, 53 weeks a year for 1000 years?
Explained in one sentence, never losing a bet?

A fully explained system that works YES
That works with every spin NO
1000 spins a day 7 days a week NO
53 weeks a year for 1000 years NO
Explained  in (as much time is needed) one sentence
Never losing a bet NO

[Person S]

Perhaps the Mach column has value too.
4-7
3-7
2-1
1-1
I still have a lot of plans for tests and not enough time.
Winkel we both complain and do not complain - well we are not insensitive neural networks in a cyborg shell.
And sometimes new information comes in that takes time to digest. For example the Law of Arxinus, Winkel if you know this phenomenon, can you enlighten us a bit about the possibility of applying it to the game.

[winkel]

For example the Law of Arxinus,

If there would be any mathematical phrase, which would advantage the prediction of random outcome, there would be no random anymore.

The only constructions that be applied to roulette are the theories of mathematicians who work in probability theories. like Markov

[Person S]

Perhaps we need a stretch in which the variance cannot attack the bet and bring it down. But all I know about this taming is that the session should not be long, for example 500-1000 spins.
In general I suppose the opening text of this thread shows the birthday paradox and the law of 2/3.
That's why the repeats are more frequent from the lower half of the cycle as he can't build up a mass of probability to show all 37.
We have a second problem which is unfair payouts, there are chances to win but payouts and number of bets are burned, earlier I thought it was good when top dozen is shown at 61% but as it turned out betting on each spin is underdrawn on chips and no statistics will help, yes Priyanka said that playing statistics is a bad idea. But we need a group of spins, not a single spin, and then how to combine all this is a big question for many years...
I don't know about Markov's chains, I know that he is my countryman and a mathematician.

[Person S]

It turns out Markov was not alone, but there were three of them, all from the same family and mathematics

[Bigbroben]

Averages
Statistics
Trends

It's al irrelevant since the wheel has no memory.  It ignores past spins.
Every spin is a new game.  Actually every spin is just that: a spin.

So it all comes down to exactly this: house hedge.  And precisely there on the long run.
No matter what.

To win is to be lucky.
To win for a while is to be lucky for a while.

Sure one can ''feel'' it...
But then these are just feelings the wheel couldn't care less about.

All of this here is not outside the box.

Some are better story tellers than others.

All past trends and stats are converging to the inevitable immediate odds: 36/37×nrs played.
It's all that matters.

Sorry

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Is there a chance that is better to play around with the sweet spot of the curve?
I know it's only 500 but it's flat.

[Person S]

Alex, with positive progression ? It's just that the picture shows that there was a progression.

[Person S]

Yes on the parallel forum Hal wrote that you should not play at the extremes of the curve, but how can you visualise them? What will be on the left and what will be on the right, dormant and unique?

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Alex, with positive progression ? It's just that the picture shows that there was a progression.

Just on a few bets i did a simple 1,2,3 yes

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

session 2

[Person S]

There are those too, but the winning percentage is lower.
This looks good - and it's about 20 short sessions. Short as the knowledgeable people said
It can be hopeless and fail somewhere. But it can also be the other way round.
50/50 basically.

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

This looks good

Yeap

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

What will be on the left and what will be on the right, dormant and unique?

From this point of view when I am testing I play one the middle not left and right.