Latest discussion on repeaters(GF)

[ati]

No. Theres absolutely no connection.

But the data shows otherwise.

I did a very simple test anyone can do, to demonstrate what I mean. I have generated 10000 random numbers, then randomly selected 1352 numbers form the set and converted them to high or low. Then I checked if the next H/L is the same as the previous. The result is truly random as you can see on the chart. No connection, no dependency.

But! Then I did the same test and selected 1352 numbers where a repeat happened and a cycle ended. Also converted them to H/L, and checked if the next is the same as the previous. You can clearly see the difference on the chart.
And note, these repeats are distinct events, usually 8-10 spins between them, so there should not be any connection. But there is.

What people are perceiving as a connection is something very different.

So what is it then? It needs to be called something and connection seems to be the most appropriate word.

Also, these numbers are constant. In 10K spins there will always be approximately 1300 cycles, and the high or low position chart for repeats will always look the same.

This is nothing new, all this was shared on the forum years ago, and of course it is not enough to win, because you don't know if a repeat comes in the next 3 spins or the next 15 spins.
The funny thing is that it I could avoid just the 1300 spins where the repeats happen and bet the remaining 8700 spins or vice versa, I could have a constant winning system. My tests confirmed that many times.

Some people did find a way to exploit this, but you think they are nuts. It's not something that can be figured out in a few days, 99% of the people, even experienced roulette players could not figure it out in a lifetime.

[6th-sense]

my take on it is as steve says its 1 in 37 each spin...single number...the straight translation is this..

whats the odds of a dozen hitting?
what are the odds of a line hitting?
what are the odds of ds hitting?
what are the odds of split hitting etc..

you get the point..

the difference here is they are a set of collected numbers reducing odds down to there respective places on the table..

so ...the numbers coming one by one give you  lesser odds to hit...

you get to 6 numbers its essentially a ds odd...you get to 12 numbers its essentially a dozen with dozen odds...not the 1 in 37...

giving you a better odds of a repeat...etc the more numbers there are the greater chance of a repeat..

thats just a basic version...

odds payout with extra pocket should be of no concern to a winning system...

if you think it does then someone post a winning system that,ll win if zero is taken away..

make no mistake steves odds for 1 in 37 is right.. just don,t be blinded by it

[MoneyT101]

But the data shows otherwise.

I did a very simple test anyone can do, to demonstrate what I mean. I have generated 10000 random numbers, then randomly selected 1352 numbers form the set and converted them to high or low. Then I checked if the next H/L is the same as the previous. The result is truly random as you can see on the chart. No connection, no dependency.

But! Then I did the same test and selected 1352 numbers where a repeat happened and a cycle ended. Also converted them to H/L, and checked if the next is the same as the previous. You can clearly see the difference on the chart.
And note, these repeats are distinct events, usually 8-10 spins between them, so there should not be any connection. But there is.
So what is it then? It needs to be called something and connection seems to be the most appropriate word.

Also, these numbers are constant. In 10K spins there will always be approximately 1300 cycles, and the high or low position chart for repeats will always look the same.

This is nothing new, all this was shared on the forum years ago, and of course it is not enough to win, because you don't know if a repeat comes in the next 3 spins or the next 15 spins.
The funny thing is that it I could avoid just the 1300 spins where the repeats happen and bet the remaining 8700 spins or vice versa, I could have a constant winning system. My tests confirmed that many times.

Some people did find a way to exploit this, but you think they are nuts. It's not something that can be figured out in a few days, 99% of the people, even experienced roulette players could not figure it out in a lifetime.

Enjoyed reading your post!  What you just pointed out has been said many times and it’s a FACT!

These FACTS make you question the game and these questions lead to a different approach

And now pay attention to this.....

Dyksexlic never said you needed a repeat to win! 😱

He said something totally different. 👈

Question everything you know about roulette and look at the facts

[Steve]

I did a very simple test anyone can do, to demonstrate what I mean. I have generated 10000 random numbers, then randomly selected 1352 numbers form the set and converted them to high or low.

Ok so far. But when the winning number was 0, did you consider this a high or low?

And what are the X & Y axis representing on your charts?

From my understanding you compared H/L numbers from random selection, to H/L numbers some time after repeats. Then you did this:

checked if the next is the same as the previous

What does this mean? Your explanation is not clear. Do you mean consecutive numbers like 32,32?

In 10K spins there will always be approximately 1300 cycles

Cycles of what exactly?

of course it is not enough to win, because you don't know if a repeat comes in the next 3 spins or the next 15 spins.

If you have X amount of unique numbers, there will of course be an AVERAGE amount of spins in which a repeat will occur. That's because it comes back to the 1/37 odds.

Please clarify the points above. They are ambiguous and unclear. I would be happy to clearly explain what you consider some kind of predictable pattern, so people can focus on looking for something that can be exploited.

[Joe]

And what are the X & Y axis representing on your charts?

What does this mean? Your explanation is not clear. Do you mean consecutive numbers like 32,32?

Cycles of what exactly?

I would also like the answers to those questions, I don't have a clue what ATI is on about. 

[ati]

Sorry, you are right, my explanation was unclear. I have attached an excel sheet, maybe it's more understandable if you also see the data.

Column A - 10K randomly generated numbers between 0 and 36

Column B - the numbers converted to High or Low (or Zero)

The colored rows show the end of the number cycles, when a number repeats and a new cycle starts. There are 1356 cycles.

Column E - contains only the 1356 colored High or Low values (the end of the number cycles)

Column F - checks if the next H/L in Column E is the same as the previous, and returns +1 if same, -1 if different

Column G - the sum function adds all the +1/-1 values, and that's what the chart is showing

This is very different from random results. This is what we call connection between number groups/cycles. This is just one example, who knows how many other connections are there.
You can call it a fallacy, an illusion, but I'm sure those who know a lot more than we do, can construct a HG from these so called imbalances. After all, these supposed to be random results. What law says that after 4,33,10,2,19,24,31,6 the low numbers have higher chance to repeat?
This is of course cannot simply be turned into a winning system, because you would have to know exactly how long each cycle will be. And we have been told numerous times that a winning system must not wait for any winning event to happen. It must be a continuous process, somehow going with the flow.

[Steve]

Ok thanks, now I understand what you mean. Do you have an excel chart that automatically calculates the H/L values and other fields?

First I'd like to test with other winning numbers.

If everything is correct and there's no error, then a simple way to exploit it may be bet on the H/L values that are appearing. So if you are expecting H, bet only on High numbers within the cycle.

[Steve]

Another thing to look at is a cycle starts from a number that was included in a previous cycle. So the numbers you consider get repeated in your calculations. This makes it more likely that the H/L is repeated consecutively.

I think this is the source of your results.

[ati]

I think this is the source of your results.

Good point. The H/L position that defined the cycle is always part of the next cycle. But still these repeats aren't that close to each other like for example dozen repeats are, so it's very interesting to see this result. And even though we are looking at straight numbers, we consider H/L positions, so the probability of same or different is 50/50. By the way it also works with Red or Black 
It doesn't really matter how it happens, what matters that it happens, even if we created it with cycles. How many times did we hear, "create your own numbers", "create your own positions", "create your own game" There are endless possibilities.

Anyway, it was not my intention to convince you or anyone. I was just curious if you considered the possibilities of connections and dependencies after a decade of repeating that spins are independent. They are, but no one says we need to play spins, you never no what will happen in the next spin, but in the next 10, 100 or 1000 spins you can predict certain events to happen with a high accuracy.

I have updated the sheet, it automatically calculates the H/L values and highlights the cycles for 20K numbers. You can enter your own spins or generate new ones in excel. You need to filter by color to copy the H/L values into Column E manually. That'd be too difficult to automatize. And make sure to paste the data as values not as functions.

[Blueprint]

Updated to reference the other column for you and made Col A random.   Is this what you intended?

[Blueprint]

Or, you could look at what Priyanka shared years ago here. 

I have exposed all hidden columns and there's a wonderful graph down below.

Have good fun.

Actually, the file is too large but I'm sure you can find it in their repeat attachments.

[falkor2k15]

They are, but no one says we need to play spins, you never no what will happen in the next spin, but in the next 10, 100 or 1000 spins you can predict certain events to happen with a high accuracy.

Events being repeats or 2 appearances within X spins? Accuracy being CLX being X% on average? That's no different to 1 appearance in 1 spin or 66% 2 dozens will hit on average every spin.

In your spreadsheet column C and D are missing - so it's never shown how to get from column B to column E. Are you trying to see if Steve will fall for that?

Repeats are only dependent on the starting partition - so I don't think there's any connection between cycles - regardless of whether you take the repeats or the uniques. Each cycle (or group of numbers) is independent of the previous.

[Blueprint]

There are many examples of dependence but so what.  It's still only statistics.  Yes, certain things must happen - now what?

[Steve]

But still these repeats aren't that close to each other like for example dozen repeats are

A dozen is 12 numbers. The odds for a repeat of a single number starts with 1 number, then 2,3,4,5, etc. So the odds becoming increasingly high, with proportion to the number of unique numbers. So the odds are: 1/37, 2/37, 3/37 etc. So I don't understand your point of the above comment.

so it's very interesting to see this result

Exactly how is it interesting? If you include a previous number in your group, then of course the group is more likely to repeat that number.

It doesn't really matter how it happens, what matters that it happens

Yes it happens, but its no different to saying reds and blacks happen. It doesnt help knowing this.

I was just curious if you considered the possibilities of connections and dependencies after a decade of repeating that spins are independent.

Believe me I have an open mind to all possibilities. But I don't believe something without information to back it up. If I don't have information, I'll look for it. In this case, you provided information but what you thought was a connection is an oversight. I've been doing this a long time and have probably had more oversights than anyone here. There's nothing wrong with that. It's part of progress. But it's important to learn and progress when you understand the oversight.

even if we created it with cycles

You can't "create" something with roulette. You can't influence the spins. There's only whatever there is.

Beating roulette is about predicting spins with sufficient accuracy to overcome the unfair payouts. The question is HOW to do it. To me the most logical way is correlate the variables to the winning numbers. But I'm sure there are other ways not yet thought of.

after a decade of repeating that spins are independent

Until i see something that indicates otherwise, instead of everything that indicates there's no dependence, I'll naturally continue to have my reasonable belief.

you never no what will happen in the next spin, but in the next 10, 100 or 1000 spins you can predict certain events to happen with a high accuracy.

Maybe true, but I haven't yet found a solid way to demonstrate or prove this. There's lots we don't understand about the universe. But it makes sense to look at the road less traveled.

There are many examples of dependence but so what.  It's still only statistics.

Its not at all dependence. The variables are different for each spin. Sometimes the variables are within ranges, and are predictable enough, for correlation. So you can predict spins with sufficient accuracy. For example, with dealer signature.

But most of you arent looking at tangible real-world variables. The way most of you are looking at it is like saying the weather in Australia is dependent on the weather in Moscow. In such a case, there is correlation, but not that you can realistically use one to predict the other. It's even worse with RNG.

[Kav]

Steve,

You missed this point, which is the most important:

you never no what will happen in the next spin, but in the next 10, 100 or 1000 spins you can predict certain events to happen with a high accuracy.

I believe the heart of the misunderstanding between AP and system players is that:

• AP sees each spin as a physical event - they only care about physical causality
• System players look at spins collectively, as data obeying rules (probability) and try to work through them statistically. Then they combine these observations/expectations with a fitting wagering plan, which IMO is  the most important part of a strategy.
  

The two approaches are totally, completely different and there is not a chance they can meet each other. Like I have said: Both the robber and the trader make money operating in a bank, but they do totally different things. There is not a chance they would talk about the bank and understand each other,