• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

The only way to beat roulette is by increasing accuracy of predictions (changing the odds). This is possible on many real wheels.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Out of thin air!

Started by GLC, Aug 28, 09:53 PM 2011

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GLC

I've been thinking about my betting against a certain dozen for 6 times in a row.  That's 1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 243-243  = 844 units if you lose.


Here's my thought for a hit-n-run.


Randomly pick a dozen or a column.  Let's say you chose the 2nd dozen.  Start betting that the 2nd dozen won't spin 6 times in a row.


What are the odds that you can get unlucky enough to pick a dozen that is going to hit for the next 6 spins? 


I have a booklet with 20,000 certified spins on a single zero wheel recorded continuously  in a marathon roulette challenge at Casino de Macao.


I have been randomly picking a spot to start betting and I haven't even come close.  Four in a row so far and 1 was a zero.  I've done this 400 times.


I know that it's possible.  But there's no way to determine the odds because how do you calculate the odds of picking the dozen that's going to hit in the next 6 spins?


I know that if you bet just 1 of the dozens continuously, you will lose because each dozen will hit 6 or more times in a row periodically.  But what are the odds that you will pick the exact time when that dozen is going to hit 6 times in a row?


It only has to happen more often than every 844 times.  I think some of us could go our whole lives and never pick a bad time to start betting.


Any thoughts?


GLC


In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

RouletteExplorer

I know that if you bet just 1 of the dozens continuously, you will lose because each dozen will hit 6 or more times in a row periodically.  But what are the odds that you will pick the exact time when that dozen is going to hit 6 times in a row?


GLC the odds are exactly the same as if you would bet just 1 of the dozens continuously.

This idea is so effective like when the ostrich puts her head in the ground when she is in danger and thinks that if she can t see the enemy that is gonna kill her,then the enemy will not be able to see her too.

Nothing changes by picking a dozen randomly.
What we need is new thinking...

vladir

He's rigth... odds are the same. BUT... what if you wait for a dozen to repeat 6 times... THEN you play this for some games (20-50), well... I think there you migth have some winnings... A dozen will hardly repeat 6 times for two times in so litle games, I guess...

"In God we trust; all others must bring data", W. Edwards Deming

GLC

Quote from: vladir on Aug 29, 04:16 AM 2011
He's rigth... odds are the same. BUT... what if you wait for a dozen to repeat 6 times... THEN you play this for some games (20-50), well... I think there you migth have some winnings... A dozen will hardly repeat 6 times for two times in so litle games, I guess...

Help me understand this.

If I wait for a dozen to hit 6 times in a row and then I bet for it to not hit for 6 times in a row, how is this different than just randomly picking a point to start betting that the same dozen won't hit 6 times in a row.

If I start betting continuously against the 1 dozen hitting 6 times in a row.  I know that I will lose because dozens hit 6 times in a row fairly often.  But, if I pick random points to bet 6 times in a row against the  dozen hitting, I can see myself not picking the exact times the 1 dozen hits 6 times in a row.

???
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

Bayes

Quote from: GLC on Aug 29, 06:07 PM 2011
But, if I pick random points to bet 6 times in a row against the  dozen hitting, I can see myself not picking the exact times the 1 dozen hits 6 times in a row.

???

Hi George,

you're right about playing continuously - sooner or later you'll hit 6 in a row. My beef with the alternative, random entry kind of approach is that it doesn't solve the problem if you continue to play that way. Advocates of hit & run think that they're avoiding the bad sessions somehow, but how?  Imagine a continuous sequence of spins within which your system is highly likely to bomb out (say 1000 spins). The "solution" of the hit & run player is to only play, say 10 spins at a time, with random entry. Sooner or later, during one of those 10 spin sessions, you will hit a losing run. The question is - has the probability of your finding this losing sequence decreased merely by the fact that you're limiting your play in any one session? I you think it has (and I don't), can you attempt to explain why? If you run a bot for 1000 spins playing continuously and find that the probability of losing is say 90%, by what mechanism is this probability lowered by playing 10 spins every day for 100 days instead?

I agree that waiting for a loss won't make any difference.
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

Bayes

QuoteAnd we can even increase it more. If the standard deviation for a dozen that has just repeated 6 or more times is high for, lets say, the last 50 spins - when I say high, I mean really high, or by other words this dozen has came out a lot more then normal - 25 times or more in a total of 50 spins), then it's even more hard that a new set of 6 spins on the same dozen will hit in the next spins. That would make the standard deviation to go out of the norm - yes since this game is random, it can still happen, but maybe not in our lifetime...)

I agree.  :)

But having said that, I wouldn't under any circumstances use the triple up progression. If the last 50 spins were in 3+ standard deviation with respect to the dozen in question, I would play the next 30 - 50 spins using a mild progression  on the other 2.
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

Bayes

Hi vladir,

I meant to quote your post but instead modified it by mistake. Sorry mate.  :-[
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

RouletteExplorer

you're right about playing continuously - sooner or later you'll hit 6 in a row. My beef with the alternative, random entry kind of approach is that it doesn't solve the problem if you continue to play that way. Advocates of hit & run think that they're avoiding the bad sessions somehow, but how?  Imagine a continuous sequence of spins within which your system is highly likely to bomb out (say 1000 spins). The "solution" of the hit & run player is to only play, say 10 spins at a time, with random entry. Sooner or later, during one of those 10 spin sessions, you will hit a losing run. The question is - has the probability of your finding this losing sequence decreased merely by the fact that you're limiting your play in any one session? I you think it has (and I don't), can you attempt to explain why? If you run a bot for 1000 spins playing continuously and find that the probability of losing is say 90%, by what mechanism is this probability lowered by playing 10 spins every day for 100 days instead?


Exactly.
The odds are always the same
I agree that waiting for a loss won't make any difference.
What we need is new thinking...

vladir

Quote from: Bayes on Aug 30, 08:09 AM 2011
Hi vladir,

I meant to quote your post but instead modified it by mistake. Sorry mate.  :-[

Can't you undo that? I don't feel like writting all again ^^
"In God we trust; all others must bring data", W. Edwards Deming

-