Repeat Repeat

[Ross]

After looking at roulette numbers and writing programmes
for numerous ideas I've come to the conclusion that
treating numbers as being unhit or repeats just doesn't work.

So why not treat all numbers as being repeats?

They all hit previously even if it happened before you
started playing so the next hit is a repeat.

Since we don't know when the first hit occurred we have
to give a value for the "spins since last hit" for all
numbers at the start and change it to the actual value
for numbers that hit after we start playing.

We could give all numbers a starting value of 36, say,
and reduce it for hit numbers until we have 36 spins
after which it would increase for numbers still not hit.

Then we need a way to use this information.  My first
choice is to monitor the standard deviation and average
deviation as they've been proved to give a good indication
of whether we should bet on numbers with big "spins since
hit" or those with smaller "spins since hit" i.e repeats
in the usual way of thinking.

[nottophammer]

Ross
I play on bookies FOBT, so its frowned upon.

When i arrive i do not know when the last spin on the machine happened, on the game i play probably a long time since start button was pushed.

Most times i note the marquee to see what would happened if i was to use them for betting the remaining non-hit. As dont know when the button pushed they are pretty useless, its just better to collect 10 new spins.

On alive wheel then its different ball game, i'd take note.

[maestro]

does not matter how you call numbers repeats,no repeats....random is information as soon as you start  that information comes and it is your turn what you gonna do

[Ross]

nottophammer

A good reason for playing on-line where you can get
some numbers quickly.

Meanwhile...

The attached programme will show the standard deviation
for the last 8, 10 and 12 numbers.

Load a file or put numbers in with the key-pad.

After 8 or 10 numbers:
A standard deviation of 11.5 or greater indicates that
you should bet on unhit numbers.

A standard deviation of less that 7 or so indicates that
you should bet on repeats.

In between.....?

[Azim]

This has been tested before and it has failed

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9040.msg75948#msg75948

[Ross]

A better version here...link:://tinyurl.com/h2ojspk

Click on the buttons to see the numbers and how they
clump when the SD is low and spread when it's high.

Attached spins from BV for playing with.

Note the effect SD has on the number of repeats. 

[Ross]

This has been tested before and it has failed

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9040.msg75948#msg75948

Not much like my idea and I see no mention of standard deviation or treating
all numbers as repeats.  And as I said betting on "unhit" numbers is a sure loser.

So nothing to learn there I think.

[Azim]

Not much like my idea and I see no mention of standard deviation or treating
all numbers as repeats.  And as I said betting on "unhit" numbers is a sure loser.

So nothing to learn there I think.

You just proving me right by saying your EMO fits someone else.

Go read the thread and understand it before making any comments on it.

[Steve]

Code your algorithm for bet selection. Test it millions of spins. If the wins are better than random there might be something in it.

Or, test manually for a year, waste time, and still not have enough data for proper tests.

It's also a good idea to understand what other people have tried billions of times before, and failed.

When new gamblers finally learn what they've been doing wrong, they wonder what they were thinking.

There are plenty of NEW things everyone can try. But most people just try the same old stuff.

[nottophammer]

And as I said betting on "unhit" numbers is a sure loser.

So you are still at the beginning of winning with un-hit numbers. You must be at the back of Winkels classroom. 

[nottophammer]

Ross
Todays numbers from Mortagon, just betting non-hit with +1/-1, make 50/+50, your grandmother can do this






Ross have you seen the sticker where a football fan is pissing on a manchester city fans shirt, well imagine its a maths shirt, piss on standard deviation

[nottophammer]

Sorry turner 6/1/17 we'll doing that 

[Turner]

Sorry turner 6/1/17 we'll doing that 

right

[nottophammer]

Ross on the FOBT
Playing RouletteDevils street system, so did not know how KTF would do. But for RNG it behaved exactly as the average says it should 15 non-hit in spins 11-40, +70

[Ross]

Code your algorithm for bet selection. Test it millions of spins. If the wins are better than random there might be something in it.

Or, test manually for a year, waste time, and still not have enough data for proper tests.

It's also a good idea to understand what other people have tried billions of times before, and failed.

When new gamblers finally learn what they've been doing wrong, they wonder what they were thinking.

There are plenty of NEW things everyone can try. But most people just try the same old stuff.

Steve
I have coded my algorithm for bet selection with results which are
quite good - in fact I keep testing it on BV just to reassure myself
that it's as good as it seems.

However I disagree with your statement that any system should be
tested for "millions of spins".  This seems to suggest that the system
has no way of avoiding bets when the numbers aren't "right" - surely
a pre-requisite for any system worth the name.

You're right in saying that most people try the same old stuff.  I've
not seen anyone trying this "new stuff" of mine in the last 8+ years
of my fascination with random numbers.