A question to the experts

[Roulettebeater]

As you can see the skew has happened only in the 10th and 11th step. Before that it is as per expectations. Considering this am likely to lean towards to say that this is likely to to go as per expectation and not going to be different from betting random 18 numbers. Another set will produce different results and you will not see consistency in your results.

Thx for ur comment... forget  skewness, expectation etc, don't bother urself unless you wanna have headache.

take a look at my staking method and don't be hesitated to write ur opinion

[Herby]

Can you continue the calculus as written below and write down the final result ?

4893*(+18) +
2386*(-18 + 36) +
1206*(-18 - 36 + 54) +
601*(-18 - 36 - 54 + 72) +
307*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 + 90) +
154*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 + 108) +
80*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 + 126) +
43*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 + 144) +
20*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 + 162) +
4*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 - 162 + 180) -
1*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 - 162 - 180)

Sum: +9918

[Roulettebeater]

4893*(+18) +
2386*(-18 + 36) +
1206*(-18 - 36 + 54) +
601*(-18 - 36 - 54 + 72) +
307*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 + 90) +
154*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 + 108) +
80*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 + 126) +
43*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 + 144) +
20*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 + 162) +
4*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 - 162 + 180) -
1*(-18 - 36 - 54 - 72 - 90 - 108 - 126 - 144 - 162 - 180)

Sum: +9918

Perfectus !

It's fire, the aim of this thread was to see if there is a genius here who can get this "on the fly" but there wasn't any!

I have just been lectured on skewness and expectation ... as usual !

[Bigbroben]

Correct me if I am wrong,
Instead of keeping it simple like a Martingale on even chances, and having (18/37) chance of doubling stash, this system uses the fractional aspect of the game on the players' side?

Are there more chances of hitting one of 18 numbers in ten rounds than one of selected EC in ten spins, just because of chaos and randomness?

9704 spins, with a bet on EC, this would give, statistically,
9704x 18/37= 4721 hits on first spin;
9704x (18/37)^2=2296 on second spin;
...

You claim to have 4893 and 2386,...?  This is way more, and the amount of rounds is big enough to be relevant, so little place for crazy deviation here.

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

Lemme just gaze at the stars for the night, I'll digest this information...

[Bigbroben]

Checked: a difference of 1.77% on stage 1; 0.92% on stages 2&3, then 0.59% and below for the other ones. 

Stage 1 at 4893 is higher than 50%, throwing the house edge away!  Close to eclipsing the house edge on latter stages, and above (1/2)^n from stage 5 to 9.

Unless I'm wrong, it's worth the few clicks when online or the token shuffling when in casino!

[Roulettebeater]

Checked: a difference of 1.77% on stage 1; 0.92% on stages 2&3, then 0.59% and below for the other ones. 

Stage 1 at 4893 is higher than 50%, throwing the house edge away!  Close to eclipsing the house edge on latter stages, and above (1/2)^n from stage 5 to 9.

Unless I'm wrong, it's worth the few clicks when online or the token shuffling when in casino!

Yup I totally agree, the push is achieved within the first stage, there we have a great hit ratio, after the first stage successively the hit ratio starts to change, this can be due to the fact that these 9k spins are not consistent (they are collected over a few days, that means there is a lot of consistencies gaps).

When I tested, I tested all of them together as I can't do manual tests, I have automated the tests and it was possible only if I test them
All together as one consistent sequence.
So back to the point, applying a classical martingale is not recommended, I tweaked the progression a bit and used the ladder I already described.

[Bigbroben]

I still find it hard to understand how it can e a hit rate higher than 50% with less than 50% of coverage...

Nrs are chosen randomly? Change every spin? DO you choose the last 18 nrs to exploit repeaters?

[Roulettebeater]

New exploration with 404 spins, this time they are consistent:

Stage1 > 199
Stage2> 108
Stage3> 53
Stage4> 23
Stage5> 11
Stage6> 4
Stage7> 3
Stage8> 2
Stage9> 1
Stage10> 0



199*(+18)
+108*(-18+36)
+53*(-18-36+54)
+23*(-18-36-54+72)
+11*(-18-36-54-72+90)
+4*(-18-36-54-72-90+108)
+3*(-18-36-54-72-90-108+126)
+2*(-18-36-54-72-90-108-126+144)
+1*(-18-36-54-72-90-108-126-144+162)

Total=1098

[Roulettebeater]

I still find it hard to understand how it can e a hit rate higher than 50% with less than 50% of coverage...

Nrs are chosen randomly? Change every spin? DO you choose the last 18 nrs to exploit repeaters?

No, No, No

Numbers are not chosen randomly!

I never said that!


If you want to beat this game, you have only one way:
increase the accuracy!

[Roulettebeater]

 "The Hit-rate of Stage1+Stage2 must be > 1/2 of TotalSpins"

In last exploration above:

199 +108 = 307 >1/2 of 404

[Bigbroben]

OK,
let's say I can't go to casino, check for dealer, study his numbers/trend and bet accordingly.

Live tables online would do it, right?   RNG?

Actually, checked real quick, I think you'd be better off stopping progression at stage 3: later you lose money.

[Roulettebeater]

Actually, checked real quick, I think you'd be better off stopping progression at stage 3: later you lose money.

Mate,

Let RNG alone, the highway to hell goes through RNG.
Real tables only, my method will kill the casino!
Because i am beating them exactly in the same point where they are strong at..

I don't agree that i should stop at stage 3...

Stage1+Stage2 will always have a hitrate >50%.

[Bigbroben]

Hi,

if you are using a doubling-up Martingale, sure you could continue.  Again, with your 9xxx rounds given earlier,but if only +1u every step, then if stop at:
step 1: 1638u
step 2: 558u
step 3: 87462 u
step 4: 54576 u
step 5: 32832 u
step 6: 24840 u
step 7: 15048 u
step 8: 11898 u
step 9: 11178 u

... probably reaching the 9918u sum at round 11.

P.S.: Sum of the numbers you gave is 9695, not 9704.  Hey, doesn't matter, still good.

[Roulettebeater]

Limiting the stages to only 3 produced following results:

Stage1>  193
Stage2>  106
Stage3>   53

44 TIMES we have had three consecutive losses ...
So the total is:

189*(+18)
+104*(-18+36)
+52*(-18-36+54)
+44*(-18-36-54)

= 522

[Bigbroben]

Limiting the stages to only 3 produced following results:

Stage1>  193
Stage2>  106
Stage3>   53

44 TIMES we have had three consecutive losses ...
So the total is:

189*(+18)
+104*(-18+36)
+52*(-18-36+54)
+44*(-18-36-54)

= 522

Wasn't it 199, 108, 53?