@ turbo

[junscissorhands]

I do not know him personally, but I know his situation and I do not condone that type of behavior. That's not what being a man is about.

But I get the point, no point of being all parrots saying the same thing. I am not in a zoo, am I?

[Tinsoldiers]

But I get the point, no point of being all parrots saying the same thing. I am not in a zoo, am I?

Excellent.

[Andre Chass]

Baccarat is for pussies. I have substantiating information.

I think computers are for pussies too

[nottophammer]

I think computers are for pussies too

[Steve]

I think computers are for pussies too

No they put hair on your chest. I can understand the confusion

[TurboGenius]

Turbo already revealed his system. Here, it would be virtually identical to this:

Nope lol
But at least you're paying attention to some of the things I said.
It's at least a start, you'll get there.

[Steve]

Turbo, You and I know. But others dont.

[Scarface]

I know playing a single number, you can see a number go cold well over 200 spins.  If playing all repeaters that come up before one repeats a 3rd time, can we see a negative variance like the singles?  Anyone ever test this?

[denzie]

No they put hair on your chest. I can understand the confusion

Would be better on your head baldy 

[Steve]

Yes, it would be. But I have enough up there to keep me going.

[falkor2k15]

I know playing a single number, you can see a number go cold well over 200 spins.  If playing all repeaters that come up before one repeats a 3rd time, can we see a negative variance like the singles?  Anyone ever test this?

What are you talking about!? Your questions are very vague and muddled again with no examples. Numbers can go cold for up to 500 spins! Variance is not exploitable because it's independent to the previous game and takes it's own direction at random times as we've discussed over and over. All repeat games break even. There's only so many ways you can play a couple of repeats - and each variation results in a break even game - see below in red.

This is what happens when you bet hot numbers (front runners) on the premise that only they can reach X repeats because they've repeated already:

You need a casino with $10K house limits, and it sure doesn't win flat-betting! And this is without any house edge, BV-style...

2nd Dozen repeat below: all overtaken by a sleeper..

1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 3 3
3 1 1   2 2 2
2 1 1   2 3 3 3
1 1   2 2 2
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   2 2 3 3 3
1 1   3 3 2 2 2
1 1   3 3 2 3
1 1   3 3 2 2 3
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 2 3 3
1 1   2 3 2 3 3
3 1 1   2 2 2
1 1   2 2 2
3 1 1   2 2 2
1 2 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 3 2 3
1 1   2 2 2
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   2 3 3 3
1 1   2 3 2 2
1 1   2 2 2
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 2 2 3 3
1 1   3 3 3
3 1 1   2 2 2
1 2 1   3 2 3 3
1 1   2 2 3 2
1 1   2 2 3 3 3
1 1   3 3 2 2 2
1 1   2 2 2
1 1   3 3 3
2 1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 3 3
1 1   3 2 2 3 3

There's only so many ways you can play 2 repeats of a dozen based on the front runners. I can bet the front runner till I get the 2nd repeat:

11 1
11 21
11 231

Or I can stop early if I don't get the 2nd repeat in X spins:

11 23

Or I can wait out certain spins or change to a different front runner, etc.

I have tried every possible way of playing 2 repeats, but the long term result is always the same: break even! It doesn't even tilt one side to wins/losses. It's just plain old break even. I have attached a spreadsheet so people can test for themselves based on 1 million spins:
Download dozens2repeats.xlsx...

If we cannot tilt 1 repeat of a dozen and we cannot tilt 2 repeats of a dozen then it follows that the numbers game is also break even.

You are either randomly guessing or trying to follow a previous set of random past spins, so the result is the same.

12... I guess dozen 1+3 and I have a 66% chance of winning.
12... I guess a 1+2 repeat and I have a 66% chance of winning.

I never won the repeat. I won the 66% chance bet - one or more independent static bets. The repeat formed by itself as a natural pattern based on the "unique" labels I chose for 1 and 2. Another player at the table who played the 2 spins before I arrived could have labelled them as a repeat instead of uniques:
1212

We cannot predict repeats/uniques. The wheel doesn't make any distinctions - it's us that places the labels depending on our viewpoint.

I just spun number 7 - dozen 1 again:

1

Now the properties of that dozen 1 has everything to do with whatever past number sequence I decide to put in front of it:

2             1... here it's a unique
12           1... here our 1 is a 1st repeat
1231       1... here our 1 is a 2nd repeat

So it all depends what random past spins you take in order to determine whether something has repeated or not. One man's repeat is another man's unique. Again, cannot be used for prediction.

I'll prove that you cannot predict a repeat:

Each dozen is equally-likely:
1
2
3

Now I can take any 2 unique dozens and put them in front of the above, and I will end up with more chance of a repeat:
    1
122
    3

    1
312
    3

So I didn't predict anything - patterns form independent of my prediction

I blindly look back on the marquee and find a number (9) that is dozen 1:

1...

Now I have 33% chance for dozen 1,2 or 3 some 10 spins later...

11...
or
12...
or
13...

However, since 2/3 outcomes don't match the earlier dozen 1, there is a 66% chance the dozen will be different to any past (random) dozen I decide to put in front of the latest dozen:

12...
or
13...

Again, there's 33% chance we can get dozen 1,2 or 3 next spin, but when I put it after 2 previous unique dozens from the past I get a 66% chance of matching one of them - simply by the laws of number sequences (combinatorics) and natural patterns:

121
122
131
133

So the repeat has nothing to do with prediction - it's an illusion that hides the fact we are playing individual static bets - resulting in break even over the long-term.

[Joe]

If playing all repeaters that come up before one repeats a 3rd time, can we see a negative variance like the singles?  Anyone ever test this?

This is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean what's the longest losing run if you bet on all numbers which have hit twice? You can't really compare it with betting on a single number because obviously you would be betting more than one number, and the more numbers you're betting the shorter the losing run will be.

[Steve]

If playing all repeaters that come up before one repeats a 3rd time, can we see a negative variance like the singles?  Anyone ever test this?

Been tested countless times. Still averages 1 in 37. Still not listening.

[Joe]

Anyone ever test this?

The way to test it properly would be like this :

1. Wait until a number has repeated and bet on it.
2. When you make the bet as instructed in (1) place another bet on a single number selected at random.
3. Continue to place more bets on numbers which repeat, and everytime you do this select another number at random and bet on it too.
4. When you get a win, stop.
5. Repeat steps 1-4 several dozen times (at least), then compare data from both groups.

So you have a "control group" (betting random numbers) which is betting in tandem with the "treatment group" (betting repeats). The only difference between the 2 systems is the numbers you're betting on (the amount of numbers you bet on is the same in both). You could also use a progression if you like, but it must be exactly the same for both systems.

This is a basic requirement for good experimental design; everything must stay the same for both "experiments" except for the one attribute of interest (in this case the bet selection). The hypothesis is that betting on repeats are better, but better than what? In this case the experiment is trying to find out whether it's better than betting randomly. So if the results show that you win more often when betting on repeats you can be sure that it's actually betting on the repeats which makes the difference and not something else like the amount of numbers or the money management, because these are the same in the control group. But if there is no significant difference it shows picking the repeats has no effect; you might as well pick any random numbers.

All this might seem obvious but hardly anyone seems to do a proper test like this for bet selections. 

My guess is that Turbo hasn't done a test like this for his system, and that it's only the progression which is doing the work.

[wiggy]

@CoderJoe....that's a nice idea, but how long would you need to test to arrive at a conclusion. For example, if you were just testing 1/2/3 numbers, the variance could make both ways seem like winners even though at least one of them obviously isn't.