Repeaters roulette systems

[luckyfella]

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?

There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......

I have to set the expectations right.

[luckyfella]

This is a real typical roulette outcomes with #22 repeat. Just won. 

Repeaters ALWAYS happen with roulette outcomes guaranteed 100%.

Figure out why it happens

I already posted everything that's required.
Too bad nobody reads.

Hint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.

[Joe]

There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......

I have to set the expectations right.

If you think this makes the case for dependent outcomes you are badly mistaken. The fact that you rarely, if ever, see sequences like that has nothing to do with dependence - NOTHING!

Hint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.

What a great hint. It's about as useful as Turbo's  'for a number to hit twice it must have hit once', lol.

[luckyfella]

If you think this makes the case for dependent outcomes you are badly mistaken. The fact that you rarely, if ever, see sequences like that has nothing to do with dependence - NOTHING!

What a great hint. It's about as useful as Turbo's  'for a number to hit twice it must have hit once', lol.

This time I have to make this post.

You may be educated in math.

BUT, you are just some random dumbfark who knows nuts about roulette.

Your posts about math is good.

BUT beyond that you are another dumbfark of forum that post NOTHING how to place winning bets.

Now fark off.
Don't waste everyones time.

[nottophammer]

You're a smart fella; Luckyfella

[Elite]

This is a real typical roulette outcomes with #22 repeat. Just won. 

Repeaters ALWAYS happen with roulette outcomes guaranteed 100%.

Figure out why it happens

I already posted everything that's required.
Too bad nobody reads.

Hint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.

Good to see 22 on your way,,  how many spins it took to get that,,  is bet that time on all numbers?

[Elite]

What about money management?

[Joe]

There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......

Does anyone else think that because you never see sequences like this it means outcomes must be dependent?

luckyfella is the one who is wasting everyone's time, not me. He's clueless.

[Kav]

If anyone is taking notes, put that in the long list of Luckyfellow contradictions. It also happened in the same topic.

I already posted everything that's required.

Yet a few hours before he claimed...

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

Since cannabis got legalized, the percentage of this type of incoherent posts has increased dramatically.

[luckyfella]

Look at all these pics, focus on the sleepers, see what happens with your own eyes.

That's all the help I give on forums.

[luckyfella]

Last pic

This happens 100% of the time due to binomial distribution.

For every sleeper is an equal and opposite repeater.

Use your brains to figure out how sleepers give you the advantage to pick repeaters to hit.

[Joe]

I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.

Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.

For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.

You need to set up a table like this :



In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :



Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.

You can do the test online :

link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.

Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.

[luckyfella]

I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.

Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.

For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.

You need to set up a table like this :



In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :



Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.

You can do the test online :

link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.

Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.

Chi square test for independence shows that you don't need a few million spins to determine the repeaters bet has positive edge. Put an end to another rubbish about million spins test posted on forums.

Chi square test won't tell you which pocket to bet and when to bet.

I made that key post on this thread, just read. I'm not afraid that somebody might decipher it. If that smart person can do that he deserves this breakthrough. Let him collect $$$ from the casino.

[Steve]

Binomial distribution guarantees repeaters hit 100%.
We know repeaters must hit. The question is which pockets and when the pockets hit.

You're making the classic mistake explained at link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/can-repeaters-systems-win-at-roulette/

Repeats are normal probability, and don’t “have to” happen
If you observe 37 consecutive spins, the chances are you wont ever see 37 unique numbers. At least some will be repeated numbers. This is very poorly understood. The math for it is simple.

You begin with 1 spin. Say it was #32. It’s a unique number. The probability it will repeat in the next spin is 1 in 37.

On spin 2, the number is #8. It’s also a unique number. The probability either #32 or #8 will repeat on the next spin is 2 in 37.

On spin 3, the number is #4. It’s also a unique number. The probability either #32, #8 or #4 will repeat on the next spin is 3 in 37.

So as we see more spins, the probability that one of the previous numbers will repeat increases.

How is this special? It’s not. It’s really basic probability.

One of the “blinders” for gamblers is thinking they’ll never see 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. Actually, if you see enough spins, you will. For example, do you think you’ll ever see a winning number sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6? You probably wont. But will you ever see the sequence 32,4,16,9,2,30? You probably wont see it either. Given enough spins, each of these sequences will happen just as often as each other. The wheel doesn’t care what numbers look like a pattern to you.

It's not something to argue about. The proof is really clear.

[Steve]

Joe, with statistics you can never 100% prove something. Simply the more data you have, the more assured you are.

Even if you test over 100,000 spins with the same system, sometimes the player will profit - especially when the system uses triggers, and ends up betting only on 10,000 spins. And especially with progression, where perhaps 1000 of those spins are high bets, and 9,000 are low bets. In such a case, there would only be 1,000 significant bets - which is still short term.