@ turbo

[Steve]

Progression almost always wins in the short term.

And betting on rare events can appear to work in the short term too.

[Priyanka]

Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good. Hmm!! Warned about the excel formula though, it might have been tampered

link:s://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8V2R2PUfxa7U1NNV05mMldKNGc/view?usp=sharing

[RouletteGhost]

Betting twos to become threes?

[Priyanka]

Betting twos to become threes?

Kind of that with a difference. As this is a test, this test always plays one number.

Twos to become threes and 3s to become 4s so on until it becomes 10s. However this is played only if there is only one number dominating. If there are two numbers that are in 2s no bet is made until one of it becomes 3.  Rest when any number reaches 10s or a new high in bank roll.

There is also a progression. Progressions is 2 units if you are playing for 2s to becomes 3s, 3 units if you are  playing 3s to become 4s and so on.

[falkor2k15]

Kind of that with a difference. As this is a test, this test always plays one number.

Twos to become threes and 3s to become 4s so on until it becomes 10s. However this is played only if there is only one number dominating. If there are two numbers that are in 2s no bet is made until one of it becomes 3.  Rest when any number reaches 10s or a new high in bank roll.

There is also a progression. Progressions is 2 units if you are playing for 2s to becomes 3s, 3 units if you are  playing 3s to become 4s and so on.

    Who is your teacher's teacher @ Excel and Roulette?

[RouletteGhost]

I know it works because its logic

Pull any 37

There's always 3s and 4s

[Steve]

The randbetween function is notoriously inaccurate with excessive repeats, so shouldnt be used in tests. Many RNG have the same problem. Nevertheless I dont understand what the excel is doing. Please explain the exact logic?

[denzie]

I know it works because its logic

Pull any 37

There's always 3s and 4s

RG....really?  How many cycles you've tested? A 3s always?  No. A 4s always?  Hell no......

[Priyanka]

The randbetween function is notoriously inaccurate with excessive repeats, so shouldnt be used in tests. Many RNG have the same problem. Nevertheless I dont understand what the excel is doing. Please explain the exact logic?

Understand the limitations and you could use your own numbers.

The logic is explained fully in reply 124

[denzie]

Here is the link to excel. I have tested 10 million spins and it seems to hold good.

Only 10 million?  Thats nothing. So doesn't count. We need a kazilliontrillionbillionsuper mega. .....illons ....

Joking . Good job 

[denzie]

Question for TG.....

What are you trying to accomplish?
What if I or someone post how it should be done ? What if someone code it and prove this really works? What if people see and read it and use it ?

Now what if casino's adjust there wheel or rules based on this method? 

You gave enough info imo. More than enough. To much actually.

[Steve]

The logic is wrong. Just because a number has repeated 1, 2, 3 or however many times, it is no more likely to repeat on the next spin, or the next 10 spins, 37 spins or whatever. This is an approach that has been tested extensively. To reveal it as fallacy I released free testing software to help people. Its at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

Priyanka, if you are simulating this approach with excel and it is showing a profit over millions of spins, you would have an error in the calculations somewhere. Unfortunately Im not an expert at excel so I cant follow the coding.

[RouletteGhost]

so let me get this straight

if a profit shows then it "must be wrong"

that is steves stance

so that proves a winning method could never be proven to steve because he would not accept it

he wants it proven to him, and if so, it must be wrong

broken down: steve says if there is profits over millions of spins it is coded wrong: laymens terms: steve believes no such thing exists, so debating him on it is pointless at best

[RouletteGhost]

now everyone knows here each spin is independent and a repeater doesnt define the next spin and anything can happen

but the fact is 38 in 38 will never happen before our eyes

[falkor2k15]

The logic is wrong. Just because a number has repeated 1, 2, 3 or however many times, it is no more likely to repeat on the next spin, or the next 10 spins, 37 spins or whatever. This is an approach that has been tested extensively. To reveal it as fallacy I released free testing software to help people. Its at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

Priyanka, if you are simulating this approach with excel and it is showing a profit over millions of spins, you would have an error in the calculations somewhere. Unfortunately Im not an expert at excel so I cant follow the coding.

She described a few more additional rules. I'll test it out next week to see... It might be possible to reverse engineer the spread sheet too to confirm the rules are as described - certainly easier than the videos. We have to give her the benefit of the doubt now - until proven right, wrong or phony.