Let's get this correct

[Herby]

Hi cht,
these ideas you combine with maximising entropy ... ?

[cht]

Hi cht,
these ideas you combine with maximising entropy ... ?

Yes, it's the natural state.

If anyone understands this properly he should know where to look for dependency. Think hard. 🤔

We don't predict what numbers hit next.
We place bets that will form this "entropy" state which is seen in Lott distribution.

[Kattila]

Quote :
**
Let's take this example, there are 18uniques without repeats
We can assume there won't be 18 uniques in the next 18spins.
**

Same this ( why only LOTT ? ) ,
.......... there are 18uniques without repeats,
Order them into ababababababababab  or  aabbaabbaa...................
or  abcabcabcabc...........or  aabbccaabbcc.................
We can assume there won t  last in the same order /positions for the next   xx spins,
even if new  numbers hit ( and order them in same order)
Disorder (mix ) is around the corner......

[Herby]

We place bets that will form this "entropy" state which is seen in Lott distribution.

I see only 2 ways, both can be doubled. 

will be a lot of programming the next rainy days

[Joe]

cht,

First you say this :

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

18 uniques with no repeats means peaters are due.

Zero dependent guys.
None of that make sense.

Then to answer Leoncino74's question you say :

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.

Isn't this a blatant contradiction? 

[cht]

cht,

First you say this :

Then to answer Leoncino74's question you say :

Isn't this a blatant contradiction? 

I was waiting for someone to point it out, waited so long. 🤔

Notice I listed it at the top of the list.

I don't want to be rude to someone else. I think you know who.

So I won't provide explanation for this contradiction.

Good call out anyway. 👍
At least someone is reading.

[Joe]

So I won't provide explanation for this contradiction.

Ok, well at least you're honest. So it's just another thread of riddles, then. In which case I won't be replying to any more posts in the thread. 

[Blueprint]

Seriously. Who has the time or energy to keep chasing riddles.  It’s not helping anyone.

[cht]

Ok, well at least you're honest. So it's just another thread of riddles, then. In which case I won't be replying to any more posts in the thread. 

Joe, The title of this thread is "Lets get this correct"

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.

I wrote this in the very first sentence.

This thread should have only one post, ie. the first post.
Any discussion centered around this post.

I strongly believe many of you didn't get it correct.
Some of you assume you get it correct but NO you are wrong.

This thread is not a systems betting thread.
There's is no riddle to guess. None.

Only math to educate yourself.

If you don't know the math you have zero chance to design a systems bet with positive edge.

I responded to queries because I stepped out to help.
From this point onwards it shall be on topic that's contained in the first post.

[cht]

How many of you are aware there is ZERO losing betselection ?

Yup, zero.

Bet you didn't know this.

This is the purpose of this thread.

[Clf7]

How many of you are aware there is ZERO losing betselection ?

Yup, zero.

Bet you didn't know this.

This is the purpose of this thread.

What do you mean? betting every spin and winning or end very session with + ?

[Herby]

betting every spin and winning or end very session

could be : betting every spin and  end every session with Zero (no win, no loss) ?
I don't know such a bet.

[Clf7]

Sorry cht, but from a scienced based view its completly impossible

[cht]

What do you mean? betting every spin and winning or end very session with + ?

Imagine you bet your favourite numbers, lets say #2,3,13,26,32,36

This is your betselection every time you visit the casino, you bet the same thing.

I have a simple question for everyone.

QUESTION

Is this #2,3,13,26,36 a losing betselection ?

If possible post on this thread your answer.

Joe, pls post your answer to this simple question.

***To make the question less complicated, lets say you play on no zero roulette.

[Clf7]

 Betting some inside bets randomly, is a random bet so random accuracy