looking at repeaters a bit differently

[hanshuckebein]

hi folks,

I wonder if anybody has ever looked at repeaters like this?

please see attachment

cheers
hans 

[Firefox]

I think Gareth contradicts himself in his first sentences. He first says that it is not possible to predict with any certainty the patterns that will occur. This is true.

He then says that "what is known" is that if numbers occur they will usually repeat at least in the short term. Well, if it is known, then if they *usually* repeat,  you are predicting with some certainty rather than any certainty. He is suddenly introducing a positive expectation for a number rather than a chance expectation. By glibly stating "what is known", he totally contradicts his first accurate premise.

However, if one is going to play this strategy it is more logical than playing sleepers for the sole reason you may have identified some short or longer term physical wheel bias.

[falkor2k15]

The repeat is more likely to continue because the front runner already has a lead, whereas the others need to play catch up in order to be awarded the repeat and become the new front runner. However, the probability for the next repeater to be the same as the last repeater still carries a proportionate risk-reward. It's like saying that double dozens are more likely than single dozens, but the payout is less, hence over time is a break even game with superadded house edge.

[The General]

The repeat is more likely to continue because the front runner already has a lead, whereas the others need to play catch up in order to be awarded the repeat and become the new front runner. However, the probability for the next repeater to be the same as the last repeater still carries a proportionate risk-reward. It's like saying that double dozens are more likely than single dozens, but the payout is less, hence over time is a break even game with superadded house edge.

Can you post any math that supports your absurd claim?
Why is a repeat more likely to hit than a number that has not repeated in the random game?  What is the physical reasoning behind it?  What's the physical cause that makes that number more likely to hit? 

[Steve]

You won't get supporting math or logic.

Members often make nonsensical statements, then go silent when you ask for validation, because they don't have the answer. And just when you think maybe they came to their senses, they repeat the rubbish. Even worse, they think youre the one with the problem.

Fairies are real. Why do i think that? I dunno, they're just real.

[Mako]

You won't get supporting math or logic.

Members often make nonsensical statements, then go silent when you ask for validation, because they don't have the answer. And just when you think maybe they came to their senses, they repeat the rubbish. Even worse, they think youre the one with the problem.

Fairies are real. Why do i think that? I dunno, they're just real.

For me it's not fairies per se, though they are appealing.

It's the disconnect between probability odds and actual odds.

With the coin flip example, the probability odds or flipping "heads" eight times in a row is 1 in 255.

The actual odds on that eight flip are of course 50/50, just as they were the first flip.

That is the disconnect for the roulette system player. 

Yes, most of us understand that the pockets are fixed and the payout is incorrect, hopefully we are not all that math ignorant.

But the mixing up of probability and actual odds is where the disconnect lies, at least for me personally.  And in that disconnect, the possibility that if there's a system that can turn that 1 in 255 probability into 1 in 200,000, while having a MM that can fit table limits, is what entices the non-AP system player.

So far, haven't found it.  Though repeaters have worked well in the short term over the past few months. 

[hanshuckebein]

Why is a repeat more likely to hit than a number that has not repeated in the random game? 

but is roulette truly random? I found some material from somebody who says "no, it isn't".

I'll open  a new topic and load up this material  tomorrow.

[Firefox]

This Gareth reminds me of Norman Squire and his book, How to win at Roulette. Squire is eloquent and was also a fine Bridge Player. He seems to have a blind spot at Roulette though. He starts off stating the wheel has no memory and each spin is random. Then the very next chapter he advocates some fanciful system where one waits for sleepers for a number of spins and then starts some crazy progression betting that number to appear. The very worst kind of mathematical system you could play.

But I don't mind people playing mathematical systems. They have fun which is the main thing, and so long as losses don't get out of hand for them they provide profit for the house and cover for other types of player. Without system players, roulette would cease to exist.

[Steve]

but is roulette truly random? I found some material from somebody who says "no, it isn't".

Nothing is ever "random" (in the context of no cause). There is only cause and effect. The question is more whether or not it's predictable. I'm not talking about knowing there will be an even spread of reds/blacks, because that's just because there are an equal amount of red/black pockets. You still cant predict which will spin next (at least with better than "random" accuracy).

The biggest problem system players have is they dont even consider cause and effect. Their idea of cause is after RRRRRRR, B is due. It's really bad logic. Dont laugh, because almost every system player here does it. The difference is they do the same thing, but with a more elaborate backwards logic (such as repeaters).

[hanshuckebein]

steve,

so you suggest that trying to beat roulette with whatever system is not possible because of math but because of "cause and effect"?

[Steve]

Math and cause and effect are related. Math is the calculations to model cause and predict effect.

I suggest trying to beat roulette any way capable of increasing accuracy of predictions. You cannot beat roulette with random accuracy. People who say roulette is predictable because its random are clueless.