It works - RNG

[cht]

Unhits, hit, peaters accaduti in passato. Le statistiche passate non contribuiscono in alcun modo ai giri futuri.

L'unica cosa importante è dove si trova l'ultimo giro. L'ultimo giro non ti dirà i prossimi 37 giri. Ti dice solo del prossimo giro. E il prossimo giro sul prossimo giro successivo e così via .....

E allora a che serve LOTT ?  Perchè avere 37 spin e poi iniziare a puntare?

The connection to Lott is explained in this video how it is formed.

Without Lott there is no chance to gain any edge. Casinos want their spin in the most unbiased manner. Modern wheels have computers monitoring spins to detect bias where they are immediately recalibrate if detected. This unbias spins in toto mostly produce the perfect frequency distribution aka Lott.

Look at Winkel's frequency distribution number he posted earlier. There are a few distorted distribution, mostly stay quite close to the average numbers. The closer to average the better. The skews are the nemesis.

So, when I wrote select your dealer carefully, you're selecting the dealer who spins the frequency distribution staying close to average. Look at lots of dealers from novice to veterans, plot their frequency distribution. Then make the connection. What is your guess which dealer produce Lott distribution best? Last group of spins is from RNG, compare them to know which wheel to play at.

I have given you guys the most math and science base info on this entire forum. Educate yourself and use it. Use your brain to figure the rest.

I found this about letters and words in another video. After the letter "q", which letter(s) that follow make a word? The 25 other letters carry different probability.

link:s://youtu.be/stgYW6M5o4k

[Moxy]

The connection to Lott is explained in this video how it is formed.

Without Lott there is no chance to gain any edge. Casinos want their spin in the most unbiased manner. Modern wheels have computers monitoring spins to detect bias where they are immediately recalibrate if detected. This unbias spins in toto mostly produce the perfect frequency distribution aka Lott.

Look at Winkel's frequency distribution number he posted earlier. There are a few distorted distribution, mostly stay quite close to the average numbers. The closer to average the better. The skews are the nemesis.

So, when I wrote select your dealer carefully, you're selecting the dealer who spins the frequency distribution staying close to average. Look at lots of dealers from novice to veterans, plot their frequency distribution. Then make the connection. What is your guess which dealer produce Lott distribution best? Last group of spins is from RNG, compare them to know which wheel to play at.

I have given you guys the most math and science base info on this entire forum. Educate yourself and use it. Use your brain to figure the rest.

I found this about letters and words in another video. After the letter "q", which letter(s) that follow make a word? The 25 other letters carry different probability.

link:s://youtu.be/stgYW6M5o4k

I generally like the cut of your jib but methinks entropy and decay has little to do with random distribution save for the obvious fact of eventual worn down material, i.e., the wheel, ivorine ball, etc.,.

[cht]

I generally like the cut of your jib but methinks entropy and decay has little to do with random distribution save for the obvious fact of eventual worn down material, i.e., the wheel, ivorine ball, etc.,.

You are correct about the condition of the wheel and the type of ball used.

Plot the frequency distribution based on wheel condition, ball, dealer and size of playing crowd(activity). The right type of dealer spinning at the ideal wheel and ball produce the best frequency distribution giving the best chance to win. Bettor has to do the prelim work.

link:s://youtu.be/vGealq9I2j4

[Joe]

cht, you seem confused and your statements are contradictory, and I guess I have to make allowances for the fact that English isn't your  first language. All the references to Markov chains are irrelevant because the theory applies to events in which the NEXT event depends on the previous event (only). This doesn't apply to roulette because the next spin doesn't depend in any way on the last spin (just as it doesn't depend on multiple previous spins, as you admit), so there is no way to predict the next spin using Markov chains.

But you also say that success depends on the LOTT, which is a probability statement about a SEQUENCE of roulette outcomes. Do you see that this is contradictory? Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.

And then you go on to talk about dealer influence and physics. You're correct that these factors do influence the outcomes, but why not just stick to AP methods? Forget the LOTT and Markov chain nonsense.

[INTERCEPTOR]

Members need solution for LOT so please be kind you two and go to private chat, thank you.

[gizmotron2]

Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.

Funny how you always come back to that as some kind of Kryptonite to Superman. So let's see how powerful it really is.

1.) Does the power of 1/37 prevent win streaks from occurring?

2.) If a win streak were to occur does the power of 1/37 keep you from knowing it?

3.) Does the power of 1/37 predict when a win streak will start?

4.) Does the power of 1/37 tell anyone when a win streak will end?

5.) Does the power of 1/37 cause a mathZombie to pretend that no one can know if they can notice a win streak?

These questions are intended to manipulate your mind into being impressed by a charlatan. They are in no way used to defame or discriminate against the perceived prowess of any discerning judgment made by dissenters. You can still keep your magical mathematical beliefs.

[winkel]

As I mentioned before:

If you reduce a spin-cycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
- that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit. 

By this way we can ignore the 1/37-probability.

What can happen next?
If we cut of the 1st spin of that past cycle we
- can lose a "hit once", that will form a 15 12 10
- can lose a "more than hit once" with two possibilities
-- if we lose a 2hit it will form to 14 14 9
-- if we lose a 3hit it will form to 14 13 10
- we can never lose an unhit #

Whatever the result is, we have a new probability scale for the new 37th spin.
Than we can use Markov again and get a combined probability.

pls refer to my "math proof that GUT works"

[Joe]

If you reduce a spin-cycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
- that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit.

By this way we can ignore the 1/37-probability.

 

Winkel, how many pockets are on the wheel when you make that bet? It should be 37. If you're not sure, try counting them. Now count how many numbers you'll be betting on. Divide this number by the number of pockets, and there's your probability.

Guys, I know this is a roulette systems forum, but there must be some people here who can apply basic probability. Anyone?

[Joe]

If something is winning, it must have a very good and explainable reason how it can avoid the basic proofs, like the independence of spins, the negative EV of each bet, and the problem of the constant bet, so that the law of large numbers doesn't apply.

Yes exactly. Other than physics, I've never seen a plausible explanation of how systems can win.

A real proof is never a simulation. I posted the charts yesterday to shown that random bets can win thousands of units for thousands of spins, but they can also lose.

I have to disagree with this. A real mathematician would probably agree with you, but if you run the simulation over enough spins the probability will converge very closely to what you would get by using an analytic method (mathematical proof).

[winkel]

Guys, I know this is a roulette systems forum, but there must be some people here who can apply basic probability. Anyone?

For sure, you are not one of those people who can teach basic probability.
Otherwise you would know Kolmogoroff!

Try again to proof your non-knowledge

[6th-sense]

As I mentioned before:

If you reduce a spin-cycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
- that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
- that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit. 

By this way we can ignore the 1/37-probability.

What can happen next?
If we cut of the 1st spin of that past cycle we
- can lose a "hit once", that will form a 15 12 10
- can lose a "more than hit once" with two possibilities
-- if we lose a 2hit it will form to 14 14 9
-- if we lose a 3hit it will form to 14 13 10
- we can never lose an unhit #

Whatever the result is, we have a new probability scale for the new 37th spin.
Than we can use Markov again and get a combined probability.

pls refer to my "math proof that GUT works"

ok joe look here as a basic probability...winkel is explaining the rolling 37 spins very clear...

spin by spin....

lets say a minimum of 8 unhits hit on a rolling basis do for the very least come out....as numbers do change each spin..for the most part...

knowing this..and lets say on a rolling basis you have uniques and repeats come out in a streak say 6 times...

you now know that in front of you as winkel shows...that probability to hit a unhit....

you know your getting a maximum of 8 unhits in the next 31 spins...which 8 of them are going to win bringing that down to mm ...two probabilities in combination where you worst case scenario is 23 losses...which won,t happen in a row...please don,t say anything can happen in row in this scenario as i,ll tell you 100 percent it won,t ..this is an example using past spins...but on a constant rolling basis not a static set of numbers...but the whole combination of all three states...using past numbers..the probability ratio for  payout which changes for the most part every spin...

two probabilities in combination ...this is a good example how to use past spins..and a case of expectation

CHT is thinking a little bit different than what you are use to...its a bit more than your basic player...

[6th-sense]

you know your getting a maximum of 8 unhits in the next 31 spins.

misquote...minimum of 8

[Joe]

6th,  I was pretty sure I understood what Winkel was getting at, but thanks for the clarification. I don't want to become like the general and just be repeating 'it won't work', because that gets boring and annoying, so I'll run some tests and come back with the stats. Numbers don't lie, so I'll let the numbers do the talking, and STFU (which will probably be a relief to some). 

[6th-sense]

was an example joe...to look a bit differently...but go ahead..

[ati]

Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.

This is very much correct. However things get more complicated when you consider conditional probability.
We can always have two dynamic halves, one containing the most recent 18 numbers, the other half can be called the sleepers. And this is where things get interesting. Under the condition of no repeat on the next spin, the probability that the next number will be from the sleeper half, is over 50%
Do we always have the same probability that a repeat will happen? I don't think so. The more unique numbers we have the higher the probability of a repeat. Of course the risk and payout is always in balance, but that's a different matter.

So while I fully understand the independence of spins and how random sequences behave. I cannot convince myself that all numbers have 1/37 probability of appearing at all times. For this view we always need to look at cycle of spins instead of individual spins, and the condition of the probability is in the future, so it cannot simply increase our accuracy of prediction.