Let's get this correct

[cht]

The purpose of this thread is to correctly understand 2 most common quoted statements on roulette forums and a few other held beliefs. This is my final thread, possibly my last contribution and post on forums. This is a discussion to discover the facts, I may be wrong.

The first one is "extra pocket with unfair payout".

This is touted by naysayers and the mathboyz as the reason why all systems bet fail itlr.

Imagine there's this game where the bettor gets paid 0.973 for win and lose - 1. So itlr the bettor loses to this unfair payout or" tax", easy to understand.

There's this underlying assumption in the conclusion above that the systems bet do not win. This "tax" do not cause the systems bet to be a non-winner.

The second one is "losing system or simply loser".

If there is no such thing as winning system. It must also mean that there's no losing system.

I won't explain this, I leave it for you to get it right. The next time anyone says your systems bet is a loser, tell that moron I wish you were right.

This leaves us a situation where our systems bet is neither winning nor losing at the same time we pay a "tax" known as house edge as we play this game.

Until and unless the systems bet is a winner that overcomes this house edge and more.

This brings us to the predictability of future spins. If future spins are absolute unpredictable then there's no chance to design a winning bet.

10reds series do not indicate a red or black next spin. Same with 9red or 11reds or any other series.
Patterns fall under this category.
I'm sure we all know this by now.

Let's go deeper into predictability.

We stare "independent and unbiased" spins in the face.

We get all the arguments on both sides.
Joe and Ares to and from discussion is a good one.

The point of this thread is to focus the attention on the word "independent".

Independent spins is the culprit why systems bet can't win nor lose, tax aside.

If you don't find dependence there's no chance for a winning bet.
Inversely, if you find dependence you have found the holy grail.

Thanks for reading.

[Anastasius]

Is anything truely "independent "
U could make the game even more independent if each slot changes its numbers with each spin .

[ati]

Is anything truely "independent "
U could make the game even more independent if each slot changes its numbers with each spin .

That would only matter is there was a physical bias. Otherwise it wouldn't matter at all. You could put all black numbers on one side of the wheel and all red numbers on the other, it wouldn't change anything in randomness or independence. It's completely irrelevant how the numbers are arranged on the wheel.

[gizmotron2]

Is anything truely "independent "

There is one thing that is independent. It's when your bet selections, no matter what they are, produce up and down wave statistics that reflect positive or negative results. This occurs over time and from multiple spins where bets are placed.

You have the power and the permission of the casino when to bet and how much to bet during these wave formations. You can also pretend that they don't exist. You can also get mad and attack me for suggesting this. There's also feeling sorry for me for being an idiot. You can take that position. People are at different phases of their gambling experience. So they will be compelled to take a position that is dependent on that phase. There can only be one truth. Therefore there can only be independence where truth is on one side and everything else is on the other.  Now get all riled up and blow off your steam. It does not matter if you think you are right while in fact you are wrong.  It always comes down to proving it. So let's just stipulate that when you discover that you are wrong it will be too late to take advantage of what you found out was true.

[Clf7]

Gizmo please stop spamming this kind of threads, we actually want to learn some facts from cht not "reading randomness" BS. Thanks

[Clf7]

The purpose of this thread is to correctly understand 2 most common quoted statements on roulette forums and a few other held beliefs. This is my final thread, possibly my last contribution and post on forums. This is a discussion to discover the facts, I may be wrong.

The first one is "extra pocket with unfair payout".

This is touted by naysayers and the mathboyz as the reason why all systems bet fail itlr.

Imagine there's this game where the bettor gets paid 0.973 for win and lose - 1. So itlr the bettor loses to this unfair payout or" tax", easy to understand.

There's this underlying assumption in the conclusion above that the systems bet do not win. This "tax" do not cause the systems bet to be a non-winner.

The second one is "losing system or simply loser".

If there is no such thing as winning system. It must also mean that there's no losing system.

I won't explain this, I leave it for you to get it right. The next time anyone says your systems bet is a loser, tell that moron I wish you were right.

This leaves us a situation where our systems bet is neither winning nor losing at the same time we pay a "tax" known as house edge as we play this game.

Until and unless the systems bet is a winner that overcomes this house edge and more.

This brings us to the predictability of future spins. If future spins are absolute unpredictable then there's no chance to design a winning bet.

10reds series do not indicate a red or black next spin. Same with 9red or 11reds or any other series.
Patterns fall under this category.
I'm sure we all know this by now.

Let's go deeper into predictability.

We stare "independent and unbiased" spins in the face.

We get all the arguments on both sides.
Joe and Ares to and from discussion is a good one.

The point of this thread is to focus the attention on the word "independent".

Independent spins is the culprit why systems bet can't win nor lose, tax aside.

If you don't find dependence there's no chance for a winning bet.
Inversely, if you find dependence you have found the holy grail.

Thanks for reading.

This kind of depedency applies to all kind of roulette's? Because RNG is like a slot with a "algorithm" compared to physical wheels.Thank you

[cht]

This kind of depedency applies to all kind of roulette's? Because RNG is like a slot with a "algorithm" compared to physical wheels.Thank you

Good question.

From what I understand today I can tell you that RNG is not the same as real dealer, wheel and ball.

RNG works with a math Algo.
And this algo is designed to go towards greater stddev limits and more often than real wheels. That's the difference and a huge one. Due to this characteristic of RNG your systems bet surely fail. It's unreal and unlike normal spins. It's not random at all.

You're wasting your time with RNG.
So never test your systems bet with RNG and never play real money with RNG. Heed this advice.

Don't ever play the airball machine. They are video RNG. Don't get cheated.

[cht]

Let me explain this correctly about RNG spins.

The spins will take the outcome towards extreme stddev, which means you either win a lot or lose a lot and vv. The spins itlr is calculated to be always balanced.

It is wrong to believe that RNG spins will make your systems bet lose. Neither will it make it win. There is no dependency except that of the Algo.

***You have to understand this basic. Random does not make your systems bet lose. It makes your systems bet not able to win itlr.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo please stop spamming this kind of threads, we actually want to learn some facts from cht not "reading randomness" BS. Thanks

OK, sorry.

[Clf7]

Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks

[Blueprint]

The source of SPINS is irrelevant. 

[cht]

Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks

Another good question.

From what I found, you will NEVER find a dependency that remain consistently the same for long. This explains why when you run rx test of your systems bet over millions of spins you get win and loss streaks. You betted on every spin. This will not give you the dependency.

The best you get is you recognise by math and science a certain outcome that's dependent on history spins. This dependence characteristic manifest itself at higher probability in conducive spin series. Higher probability means you win more than lose itlr. That's all you will find.

The problem with gambler's is you have unrealistic expectations. You think you can easily make thousands from roulette. Your expected edge is unrealistic. Anyone claims excessive systems, AP or precog winner on any wheel is a liar.

***Do this simple test on rsim. Bet any hotties system, you will find some days you win easily. Other days you lose.

[cht]

Cht when you mean a depedency occurs, it occurs like a pattern and then its disappears and appears again and so on, in specific spin cycle? Or its Independent from cycles etc and appears almost at every pair of spins or something like this? Thanks

There's a huge misunderstanding about dependent that people are looking in the wrong place.

The long list of wrong assumptions with no basis -
18uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Hit twice or thrice last 37spins means they are hotties that likely to hit again.
Sleepers must hit to maintain the long term hit rate.
#2 hit so #1 and #3 are likely to hit.
#1 & #31 hit first in the series so they are more likely to hit instead of later numbers.
#32 hit, since last number to #32 is clockwise, so bet 18number clockwise.
Stitch doz with lines and or street.

And so on and on..........

Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.

[leoncino74]

There's a huge misunderstanding about dependent that people are looking in the wrong place.

The long list of wrong assumptions with no basis -
18uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.
Hit twice or thrice last 37spins means they are hotties that likely to hit again.
Sleepers must hit to maintain the long term hit rate.
#2 hit so #1 and #3 are likely to hit.
#1 & #31 hit first in the series so they are more likely to hit instead of later numbers.
#32 hit, since last number to #32 is clockwise, so bet 18number clockwise.
Stitch doz with lines and or street.

And so on and on..........

Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.

Dici di guardare solo l'ultimo numero e poter fare previsione... ma poi dici che la storia LOTT serbvirà per giocare i giri successivi... come crei dipendenza da queste affermazioni contrarie ?

[cht]

Dici di guardare solo l'ultimo numero e poter fare previsione... ma poi dici che la storia LOTT serbvirà per giocare i giri successivi... come crei dipendenza da queste affermazioni contrarie ?

If I translated this correctly it's a good question.

How can the last 37spins tell how Lott will form in the future?

Let's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats. We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins. If we expect 14repeats then only 4uniques will hit. See how future spins are dependent on history spins to form future Lott distribution in this case.

This is the line of thought required to find dependency with history spins.

Put it this way, without Lott distribution anything can happen.
With Lott distribution some things can't happen.
Why place bets on those things that can't happen or less likely to happen?
Especially when science tells us how things happen in nature.