Repeaters roulette systems

[Steve]

For anyone interested in the truth about roulette repeater systems, see link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/can-repeaters-systems-win-at-roulette/

Repeaters are as old as gambling itself. They dont work.

[luckyfella]

Binomial distribution guarantees that repeaters 100% hit.

The only problem is which pockets repeat and when they repeat.

Solve this 2 related problems and you have a winning mechanical repeaters systems bet.

[luckyfella]

Repeaters mean these pockets hit higher than mean, positive variance.

Sleepers mean these pockets hit lower than mean, negative variance.

That's why I wrote for mechanical repeaters systems bet to work it has to predict variance accurately to generate alpha.

To do this the bet must be placed on the correct pockets and right time that the repeaters hit higher than mean, ie. positive variance.

[Steve]

To do this the bet must be placed on the correct pockets and right time that the repeaters hit higher than mean, ie. positive variance.

What's the "right time"? I tested this a long time ago to exhaustion. So have others.

The previous winning number has no correlation to the future winning numbers, except in specific conditions - none of which are anything discussed in typical repeaters threads.

[luckyfella]

To predict which pocket hit higher than mean at the right time is equivalent to variance prediction.

Variance is liken to luck.

How is it possible to predict luck ?
Impossible !

That's the narrative on forum.

Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.

End of a very predictable negative conversation as usual.

Note to those who seek this solution,

The solution has to be based on MATH.

There is nothing, repeat NOTHING posted on all forums that is close to this math that's required for the solution.

[Steve]

Do you claim to have the solution?

[Elite]

To predict which pocket hit higher than mean at the right time is equivalent to variance prediction.

Variance is liken to luck.

How is it possible to predict luck ?
Impossible !

That's the narrative on forum.

Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.

End of a very predictable negative conversation as usual.

Note to those who seek this solution,

The solution has to be based on MATH.

There is nothing, repeat NOTHING posted on all forums that is close to this math that's required for the solution.

Any clues,,?  Repeaters are balance,, house edge prove mathematically,,  it's not possible  to beat roulette long term , group of numbers or variance can be before repeats or after,long term,,  how can it work,,, 

[Elite]

All theories, binomial,, maths prove,,, in long term,,, it will loose,,,, in roulette,,,  not know why reading truth, still insist,,  there a mechanical system can be,,,  but tracking that way,,,  can give some hints,,,  but tracking,,, monitoring for small profit cannot lead to success,,,  and will cost player time,,,

[luckyfella]

Any clues,,?  Repeaters are balance,, house edge prove mathematically,,  it's not possible  to beat roulette long term , group of numbers or variance can be before repeats or after,long term,,  how can it work,,,

For dependent outcome it must have two unconnected points of reference.

[Joe]

Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.

Sounds like VB. 

[Elite]

[/quote

For 5 no,  there will be 15 no. To cover suppose and it can span more also,,  risk,,  always there,,  as more numbers to cover,,  profit, loss together and at the end house edge will overcome,,,  only it can survive if luck is there at right time with high value bets,  else it will go up and down,,  how to cope that,,, 

[Joe]

The solution has to be based on MATH.

You mentioned the binomial distribution, which models roulette wins and losses well and assumes independent outcomes. If outcomes were not independent the binomial model would be a crap model. But for maths to help with right pocket and timing (and I'm assuming you're not talking about AP) it must assume dependent outcomes. A mathematical model which works well and assumes independent outcomes cannot coexist with another which assumes dependent outcomes and also works well.

End of a very predictable negative conversation as usual

Perhaps, but it's also predictable that the conversation will raise contradictions, which means that one of the premises is false. Nobody who advocates systems and makes big claims ever resolves them, so the same old topics come and go endlessly.

[Elite]

Below extract  for binolial distribution,
how it can usefuln

Let's return to the coin-tossing experiment. The coin was tossed 12 times, so N = 12. A coin has a probability of 0.5 of coming up heads. Therefore, π = 0.5. The mean and variance can therefore be computed as follows:

μ = Nπ = (12)(0.5) = 6
σ2 = Nπ(1-π) = (12)(0.5)(1.0 - 0.5) = 3.0.

[luckyfella]

You mentioned the binomial distribution, which models roulette wins and losses well and assumes independent outcomes. If outcomes were not independent the binomial model would be a crap model. But for maths to help with right pocket and timing (and I'm assuming you're not talking about AP) it must assume dependent outcomes. A mathematical model which works well and assumes independent outcomes cannot coexist with another which assumes dependent outcomes and also works well.

Perhaps, but it's also predictable that the conversation will raise contradictions, which means that one of the premises is false. Nobody who advocates systems and makes big claims ever resolves them, so the same old topics come and go endlessly.

Binomial distribution guarantees repeaters hit 100%.

We know repeaters must hit. The question is which pockets and when the pockets hit.

Spend time figure this out instead of writing posts that cast aspersions of credibility that doesn't help anyone one bit.

[Joe]

You don't need the Binomial to guarantee repeaters; the pigeonhole principle also tells you that.

Yes, we 'just' need to know which pocket and when, LOL! simples.

And the maths can show you the way without assuming dependent trials?