interesting fact about repeating numbers

[reddwarf]

I'm not sure if it is useful, but while studying the behaviour of repeats, I found something interesting:

If I wait for a N repeats of a number and start betting on all numbers that repeated N times, the higher N, the higher the less unique numbers I need to bet on.

So for example N=2: I wait till a number hit 2 times, than I start betting on that number till a number hits 3 times.  I attached pictures of the distribution for N=1, N=2 and N=20 (~500 sessions, so the tail would of course be longer, but it's about the general behaviour of the distribution).

The way this could be utilized is via a standard progression (maybe there are other methods): the power of the reduces when N increases.  Of course this is not a viable method: the earnings per hour are minimal, but maybe I can trigger some thought.

grts reddwarf

[reddwarf]

OK, I created a script that bets on repeats (N=20), max table limit=500, max unit per number=50, european roulette, restart session when in +:

win probability: 99. 74%, but because it is a progression, a loss will hammer you.  So if a different approach would be needed here.

Anyway, it was worth a try.

[superman]

hi reddwarf, I have been messing with repeats for a while now, wait until a number hits twice then bet on that number (and any others with the same amount of hits) what do you mean by N=20?

[reddwarf]

Hi Superman:

With N=20 I mean waiting till a number occured 20 times.  I know, this is not feasible in a B&M casino, but I still think that the effect shown is interesting.

does this help?

grts reddwarf

[winkel]

Hi reddwarf,

What you detected is the normal deviation.

If you wait until a number has hit x times and then bet on it, it may hit at once or will be missing 500 times. x might be 0 or 500 it makes no difference.

This selection is described by "Haller" in his Roulette-Lexikon. He is waiting for a number that hit 8 times.

br
winkel

[reddwarf]

Hi Winkel,

Thanks for your reply.  I do agree that the previous spins do not bear any information about future spins, so independant from X (or N) they might or might not sleep.

What I found is, in my humble opinion, different from what you describe (of course I will think hard and long about your answer!): the more repeats we use as a start, the less unique numbers we will need for an additional repeat (or in other words, if we start spinning, we must wait up to say 24 spins for a repeat, if we have however a number that has been hit 20 times (just for arguments sake), we will have to bet on maximum (more or less) 11 unique numbers. 

This is indeed a result of normal random behaviour.  Can this be exploited? I don't know.  Not if we use the normal progressions.

But please, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm here to learn (and of course to find the holy grail  )

grts reddwarf

By the way, I encountered this phenomenon while studying repeating behaviour, for me this is just a side result.

[winkel]

Hi Winkel,

...  I do agree that the previous spins do not bear any information about future spins, so independant from X (or N) they might or might not sleep.

Upps, I didnÃ,´t say that!

It is long tested: betting only on favorites or on sleepers makes the known results.

The only way to get informations is to detect which of them is on a hitting streak at the moment.

br
winkel

[reddwarf]

Hi Winkel,

OK I think I now understand what you are meaning: i was confused because I do not think in terms of sleepers and non-sleepers: i do not believe in them.  You are right, what i did not mention is how many spins are needed for a next repeat, for N=20 this might well be a couple of 100!!.

What I find interesting (but again, I'm not walking that avenue, for me it is only a helping knowledge while building a beting system based on 3 very different principles): the progression, if used, is less steep when N increases.

grts reddwarf