It works - RNG

[gizmotron2]

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.

Yes, you can use the balance of expectation as a bet selection tactic. For me it's just like always searching for the strong side while one looks like it exists. I know that it fades to chaos and to the other side and back and forth. But you can see the strong side weak side while it occurs.  It never balances out all the time. If it did you could target that and win every time.  I like looking at this your way too.

[cht]

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.

You described the 2 necessary parts required. I put forward the concepts I used for the design in my previous post.

The reason for those posts is for readers like you to look at actual math which contains specific concepts that you can extract to adapt with reason for your own systems bet design to explore. This way you can progress in you own research journey based on some sound math principles and science laws.

I also explained that I am not putting up academic paper for peer review type explanation.

Joe can write whatever he wish and assume my lack of education, it's his right to express his opinion that's based on the basics of roulette spins of extra pocket and unfair payout.

But it has no relevance to what I try to do, ie. help members especially those who ask in pm for pointers. It's these people I try to help as much as I can. Without directly revealing what I found as empirical evidence for my personal consumption.

[cht]

To those trying to figure out the solution, this is the best layman explanation I put to you.

In 37spins cycle, we know the LOTT frequency distribution.

Answer this question in the context of the above para, do all numbers retain this basic probability of 1:37?

If your answer is yes which means you can't see beyond the basic 1:37 probability then you have to conclude that there's no way to design a systems bet with positive edge.

If your answer is no, then you have to take a step further to address what ati has written above for it to be useful in your bet design.

The only way to guide your yes answer has to be from empirical evidence. You may not be able to properly explain the exact math principle which is only necessary if your purpose is to put up a academic paper.

May I remind everyone our purpose on this gambling forum is to make money from the casino. Period.

I will not respond to Joe's repeated basic roulette probability which we are all well aware of.

[cht]

If anyone look closely, there's a missing part I intentionally left out.

That is to walk through spin by spin then explain how I use the math principles and science law with every single spin. This is followed by test of every math and science assumption that's applied if they hold true.
Collate the empirical evidence.

This is how it should be conducted. But ati wrote previously he wouldn't reveal it. He has given the answer. This is a gambling forum.

[Richard Meisel]

Without directly revealing what I found as empirical evidence for my personal consumption.

I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = -1, win = +35, loss = -37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L - O/L - E/H - O/H - E/R - O/R - E/B - O/B - R/L - B/L - R/H - B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?

[cht]

   I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = -1, win = +35, loss = -37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L - O/L - E/H - O/H - E/R - O/R - E/B - O/B - R/L - B/L - R/H - B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?

I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%

The key point I intentionally wrote is what guides me to place so many inside bets in such a short betting window.

[cht]

   I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = -1, win = +35, loss = -37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L - O/L - E/H - O/H - E/R - O/R - E/B - O/B - R/L - B/L - R/H - B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?

If you think a little deeper you will realise I have given the answer to the 1st step in a 2steps solution. It's not difficult to figure it out. Because I want to help others the same way others have helped me.

The 2nd step is the betselection itself. I have posted the videos for you to again think deeper into it. Details and not just superficial.

2nd step answer lies in LOTT which must form the next spin and next and next on and on.........

The next spin will always sustain the LOTT frequency distribution for this distribution to remain intact from whatever starting spin you plot from. This is a fact. And where the positive edge lies in the last 37spins.

[cht]

Lets say the wheel rolled a completely unique series with no repeats for 18spins,

Example,

14, 33,1,23,1,5,36,11,15,17,29,28,7,12,21,32,2,25

The next 19spins it will still produce the LOTT distribution.

You can check past datas to confirm this fact.
Can anyone produce a spin sequence where this is false ?

The real question is how can you use this fact to identify individual numbers that carry higher and lower probability.
That's the million dollar question.

That can be answered by precogman who has been posting phenomenal results.    

I am repeating myself. So I stop posting.
Good luck.

[Ares289]

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.

As it turns out, this so-caIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:

At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.

If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”

As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.

This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “five-count” at craps).

But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.

Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.

An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.

For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.

It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIy-niIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...

Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.

How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.

That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.

The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIf-correcting.

This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.

The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.

WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.

Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!

AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."

[6th-sense]

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). 

use nottos tracker good for looking just import real spins

link:://ayk.bplaced.net/notto/

[6th-sense]

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3JIp6EvIg

[Joe]

use nottos tracker good for looking just import real spins

Thanks, but I was going to get stats for the number of singles, unhits and repeaters first. Average and standard deviations of them in 37 spins. Usually only averages are given, but averages are misleading. Most systems seem to be predicated on betting for outcomes to conform to an average in the next spin or spins. Isn't that what Winkel is saying?

[INTERCEPTOR]

What people here need is video proof of live roulette playing to show them how LOT real works . I think no one here can provide that thing, or am I wrong?

[cht]

Most systems seem to be predicated on betting for outcomes to conform to an average in the next spin or spins. Isn't that what Winkel is saying?

Don't mix what Winkel post with mine.

I have not given any design parameters.

[cht]

What people here need is video proof of live roulette playing to show them how LOT real works . I think no one here can provide that thing, or am I wrong?

This video is seen in private. Not for public viewing. This was explained in earlier post.