Building systems around RARE EVENTS that never happen in your lifetime

[The General]

There is no theoretical limit and there only seems to be a practical limit because "rare" events depends on sample size. Nobody has ever seen 10 consecutive repeats not because it's impossible but only because it takes more spins than have ever been spun by all wheels since the game was invented.

Now for the record, once a number has hit six or seven times in a row...I hope that everyone here jumps on it, because it could be a biG red flag that the wheel is defective and biased.  "Could". 

[jekhb76]

First of All, i would like to say that i agree with All of you. It doesn't matter what we do in roulette, there is Always a chance that something happens that we weren't kept in mind while playing the game.
It's All about here and now, and Have fun while we can. Sure 20 reds in a row can happen, sure 74 spins Without a 3 peater can happen,37 unique numbers in 37 spins, sure. But it is All about luck in the End. We can extend that luck a little bit further, but at the End Will Will Always lose, if we play Long enough.
Roulette is about luck and it will always be. Kust like inreal Life, i could be dead tomorrow or in 40 years. It is luck that i Will Wake up tomorrow. But i try to make the best of it everyday. Don't know when that day Will come. Same for roulette. Have fun with the money you win, because there Comes a day when you don't Have any anymore.

[The General]

So this argument that this theoretical max may not play out in real casino play is a reasonable assumption ?

Even then the question is how many times it exceed historical max 5, not the max of max in whatever future time if it ever happens.

CHT,

To correctly test it, just stand around in the casino waiting for five in a row, and then watch to see how often it becomes 6 in a row.  Do this at least 3,700 times and you'll find that it becomes 6 in a row about every 37 attempts.

[cht]

The longer the test is run, the closer it will get to matching what basic probability predicts.  Regardless of the of the number of repeats, a number still has a probability of winning of 1/37.

We all know that in theory.

Lets assume someone conducted the test has the data set as proof.

What is your empirical evidence other than cite simple math count ?

The guy who armed with this empirical evidence will be happily making money.

Who knows it could be a local yet unexplained phenomena ?

That's my point and only point. Nothing more to add.

And this is only a hypothetical case.

[The General]

We all know that in theory.

Lets assume someone conducted the test has the data set as proof.

What is your empirical evidence other than cite simple math count ?

The guy who has this empirical evidence will be happily making money.

Who knows it could be a local yet unexplained phenomena ?

It's math and logic plain and simple.

Perhaps this experiment (below) for the ECs limits could help.

It just requires a pen and paper.  (Don't use a calculator because it will create a rounding error)
Take the number two...as in two chances.
Next divide 2 by 2.   
Continue dividing over and over until you reach zero.
Next, count the number of times that you have to divide by two before you reached zero.
The number of times that you had to divide in order to reach zero represents the absolute limit for the ECs.

The same experiment can be altered a bit, but utilized to find max streaks on single numbers as well.

[psimoes]

It goes to infinity. Like cutting an apple in two halves.

[ZERO]

After 4 repeats, the probability of seeing a 5th is 1/37.
After seeing 10 repeats, the probability of seeing an 11th is 1/37.

This is really getting old and if there is anyone out there that don`t understand it...

Yet the argument continues in circles even though I don`t think anyone is arguing what was stated above?

So let`s once again use the 37 unique`s in 37 spins as an example: Most have not seen this happen in their lifetime but do understand that it can happen but choose to bet against it happening without there being any mathematical, scientific or moral explanation for their decision, it`s just the way they choose to play and nobody will convince them otherwise.

So if anyone is having success playing this way why not just let them be?

[The General]

This is really getting old and if there is anyone out there that don`t understand it...

Yet the argument continues in circles even though I don`t think anyone is arguing what was stated above?

So let`s once again use the 37 unique`s in 37 spins as an example: Most have not seen this happen in their lifetime but do understand that it can happen but choose to bet against it happening without there being any mathematical, scientific or moral explanation for their decision, it`s just the way they choose to play and nobody will convince them otherwise.

So if anyone is having success playing this way why not just let them be?

Here's what is kind of interesting though.  You can look back through history and see it playing out (repeating) on this forum.  Some members are counting how long it took to get 14, 15, or 37 unique numbers in various sized samples.   They're then crudely attempting to compare various samples to see which ones were the best for playing repeaters and which ones are best for playing numbers that haven't hit. 
All the while they're creating their own crude versions of "goodness of fit testing."  If you give them another hundred years they might invent the chi square test and begin utilizing it instead.   By studying binomial distribution over hundreds of years a man named Pearson invented Peason's chi square test. ( Rather than reinventing the test many people would benefit from building on the knowledge already out there.)

Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It is suitable for unpaired data from large samples. ... Its properties were first investigated by Karl Pearson in 1900.

  link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson%27s_chi-squared_test

[psimoes]

Zero, good post. I guess all of this is to warn that 'anyone may have success', but not everyone will.

[cht]

To clarify, I don't play repeaters.

I haven't found repeaters to give the best edge.

If you do play repeaters it's best to extensively test your system with the data from the actual wheel you play.

The use of cellphones that do not measure the variables of the wheel and ball may likely be universally allowed in the future. Who knows ?

[The General]

To clarify, I don't play repeaters.

I haven't found repeaters to give the best edge.

If you do play repeaters it's best to extensively test your system with the data from the actual wheel you play.

Here's something that would likely benefit the hot number players.

1. Collect data fron a few or several wheels
2. Run chi square tests on each wheel to see which wheel has the highest score. (There are several spreadsheets out there that will automatically calc it for you.)

3.  Play the hot numbers and or repeater systems on only the highest scoring wheel.

[psimoes]

Here's something that would likely benefit the hot number players.

1. Collect data fron a few or several wheels
2. Run chi square tests on each wheel to see which wheel has the highest score. (There are several spreadsheets out there that will automatically calc it for you.)

3.  Play the hot numbers and or repeater systems on only the highest scoring wheel.

Thank you General!
What would be a bare minimum of spins to colect per wheel? Just for starters. Thanks in advance.

[The General]

How many do you want to collect?

[psimoes]

Oh its not for me, I cant play.  No one thanked your advice and so I thought I'd ask in the name of all ex system players /wannabe advantage players out there. To keep the conversation going. Intriguing stuff.
Cheers

[TurboGenius]

Don't run away turbo. I just answered unrelated questions, no big deal.

Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.
That's not "running away" - that's your lame attempt to make me look wrong
when I'm not. Maybe read what I wrote again, or not - I don't care.

My example was using two players - one bet from the start and the other
waited for the "rare event" and then began betting.
I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins,
the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run
without a change happening. Given enough time - YES lightning can hit in the
same place twice. But you can bet and win that when it hits, it won't hit that spot
again and win for a very very long time. I know, it's nonsense.

Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.
I never said long term - I said during the session both players are playing...
Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it -
and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting -
and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the
amount of time they are both playing.
If you believe that the last 3 number to appear - will repeat again as the last 3 numbers
to appear within the next 100 tries for example, then there's no point in explaining
Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.

It's useless to keep posting - both here and there.
If it's here then I'm jumped when posting results and told it's not accurate
when it indeed is. And there I have Bago up my ass 24/7 taking what I say
and making it into a losing argument by changing what I said into what suits
his idiotic side. So I'm done posting.
My live play will show my results - then it's just "not enough spins" and fine,
like I said I could care less.
I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.
Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.
So enjoy. If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks
upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart
at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then
I'm glad as well. But don't expect any credit other than rigged and fixed comments.
It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it. Then the one person who could
show them is just hit with bats every time I post lol.. Nice. So you either don't want
to win, or you don't want others to win for some reason.
My casino results in PA and AC are "not enough spins".
I get it. Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go. Sure, that's
all you could post and not have your intelligence insulted on these forums
now - the forums are certainly "rigged" for those who profit from it.

General - did you re-send that PM to the right person instead of me ?
I get it now, it's all a joke and whatever I post will be met with attempts
to get me to run in circles and entertain you two. I'm wasting my time.
I get it.
Or I get the troll at the other forum - who takes anything I say and turns it
around making me sound like I'm wrong. Fair enough.
You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone
and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of
the forums.
But hey - it's over. My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting
as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..
and when it comes out - you can post and complain about how it makes no
sense... you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.
It will help plenty of people though, I'll be satisfied with that.
I'm not happy about not posting anymore - but this circus where I'm
supposed to be the entertainment is over.
Cheers.