@ turbo

[TurboGenius]

The method of bet selection is unclear. Pls elaborate or give simple examples.

I cant comment much until i fully understand what you mean

In the first example - each player 1-38 is betting 1.00 per spin on their own number.
They bet for 3 cycles of spins and in the end - the house edge is (as expected).
In the second example - the house edge is 0% and the winning players still win. The only difference between the two is that in the second case there is a "system" at work which states that a player only bets once their number shows.
2,808 bets were placed and in the end the house edge was 0% and as a group the players lost nothing.
As compared to the first example where they all ended at the house edge of -228 units lost. (5.26%)

[Steve]

In the first example - each player 1-38 is betting 1.00 per spin on their own number.
They bet for 3 cycles of spins and in the end - the house edge is (as expected).
In the second example - the house edge is 0% and the winning players still win. The only difference between the two is that in the second case there is a "system" at work which states that a player only bets once their number shows.
2,808 bets were placed and in the end the house edge was 0% and as a group the players lost nothing.
As compared to the first example where they all ended at the house edge of -228 units lost. (5.26%)

How is each of their numbers selected? And whats a cycle of spins?

[tuddilue]

How is each of their numbers selected? And whats a cycle of spins?

Interesting reading!
Turbo stated it in post 7.
Each number = own number of choice.
Cycle of spins = 38 numbers.
Please continue.
- Tuddilue

[Steve]

Ok understood, pls continue

[TurboGenius]

The next post is about a comment that what happens to a group of players isn't relevant really to a single individual.. So basically the group of people ended their 3 cycles of spins "even" (the house won nothing) but that this wasn't relevant to a single person playing.
----------------------------
This is a little ahead of where I want to be but lets cover this now since you brought it up.
I'll consider this Post 3 in the thread on my part.

Player A flat bets one number every spin (that's his/her system for whatever reason) lets say #1
Player B flat bets 3 numbers every spin (according to "their" method/system) lets say #3,#4,#5
Player C flat bets A and B's numbers every spin (#1,#3,#4,#5)
There is no difference between the "group" of A and B's results vs the results of C.
Player C is basically where we're going here - and in the next post I can close the "loop" of these 3 posts.

[TurboGenius]

The next post was about how things aren't being judged equally - how the players in the second run of 3 cycles bet less spins and played less units overall so it's not fair to judge the results against one another.
------------------------------------------------------------
But it is.
We already know what happens when each player equally bets all spins equally for the same number of spins.
It ends at the house edge perfectly as it should. The group loses at the house edge (exactly)
The means of using a system or method which states x,y or z means that each player isn't betting equally anymore. So for the house - it gained nothing - the losing player #10 lost nothing. The winners still won (aside from the first potential win they missed out on).
So we know that this equality among all players produces exactly what is expected. And we know that this group playing a "repeater" style method for these 3 cycles managed to end even and not where the math says they should.
====
We could add spins - or make each player bet the same number of spins overall.. or maybe stop when they have all bet the same amount ? There are lots of ways to force the group to bet equally (but we already know what happens - they end as a group at the house edge as expected). And betting equally isn't what a system is all about in the first place. It's about doing something specific in an effort to change the end result from negative to positive.
When we implement this "repeater" style method/system though - now we have players that begin betting for some specific reason and the results have changed.

It would be a good analogy to compare this to any experiment where you have a control group (the first post) which shows what "doing nothing" results in - vs the experiment where things are changed that affect the outcome. If we force both groups to do things equally - then there's no point in the experiment and the results will be the same.

[RouletteGhost]

Turbo I'm currently enroute to harahs from Long Island

Be there at 5

[TurboGenius]

Enjoy !
I was supposed to go to Parx today - but it appears that it may end up being tomorrow.

Your path will bring you pretty damn close to where I live lol.
I'll put on coffee just in case.

[RouletteGhost]

Lol

Spontaneous trip. One night

Room was 150

[Steve]

The next post is about a comment that what happens to a group of players isn't relevant really to a single individual..

Correct, there is no connection.

Player A flat bets one number every spin (that's his/her system for whatever reason) lets say #1
Player B flat bets 3 numbers every spin (according to "their" method/system) lets say #3,#4,#5
Player C flat bets A and B's numbers every spin (#1,#3,#4,#5)
There is no difference between the "group" of A and B's results vs the results of C.
Player C is basically where we're going here - and in the next post I can close the "loop" of these 3 posts.

This is just a variety of different bets. It doesnt matter who makes them.

We could add spins - or make each player bet the same number of spins overall.. or maybe stop when they have all bet the same amount ?

I dont see how this would make any difference. If there are multiple players, at some stage they might have wagered the same amount. But there is still no connection.

When we implement this "repeater" style method/system though - now we have players that begin betting for some specific reason and the results have changed.

How will the results have changed if the accuracy of bet selection is still no better than random?

Random is still random if there's an expectation of 1 in 37 hit for single number bet. There might be different approaches for bet selection, and different accuracy for a specific group of spins, but it is still just random.

I'm not sure where you're leading with this but I'm still following what you post.

[TurboGenius]

Well, to recap then (here).

Part 1 all players bet every spin for 3 cycles of spins and ended at the house edge (as expected).
Part 2 all players bet only when their number showed for the first time - they ended even and the house edge was 0.00%. Same number of spins and same bet amount per spin.
So this was to show that using a method based on repeaters changed the outcome.
There is of course debate that the comparison isn't fair because all variables were not equal (which would make no sense really - and it would not be a system/method anymore and the results would have been the same for both tests).
So then I attempted to explain that a "group" or players or a single player betting the same numbers as the group would make no difference (true.)
That past spins mean nothing (because they don't). That single player can play from the first spin and the history board isn't used. This also avoids virtual bets or "triggers" so to speak - they are simply betting the numbers as they appear.
Part 2 (test results) showed that the player who lost because their number never showed has been eliminated since now they haven't bet (or lost anything). The player who won the most only missed out on one win because he wasn't playing that number until it appeared (which of course could have been spin #1 when you consider the big picture).

So to continue (since I'm pretty sure no one disagrees with this so far ?) I will get into how the math of the game changes due to what happened in Part 2.

[buffalowizard]

But aren't you making the assumption that a number will show up sooner if it has already just hit?

[denzie]

I will get into how the math of the game changes due to what happened in Part 2.

And how it can create a gap up to 1000 spins to reach a new high bank roll . 

[TurboGenius]

But aren't you making the assumption that a number will show up sooner if it has already just hit?

Absolutely not.
A number appearing doesn't mean that the time that it takes to appear again will be anything other than what it would normally be. It could be the next spin - or hundreds of spins. So no assumptions here, and that has nothing to do with where I'm going with this.

[tuddilue]

How about the third step?  How do you want to continue @turbo?
Thanks..
- Tuddilue