6 degrees of separation applied to roulette

[Wildcard]

Six degrees of separation is a theory that basically supports the notion that any given person is at most separated from any other person by six steps (degrees).

What does it mean ? It means that all the persons you know directly are at the first degree. The persons directly known by your acquaintances will be the second degree (starting from you) and so forth. The theory defends that you are only separated by six degrees from... well, anyone actually !

Seems too far fetched ? Sure, I also thought so.

The thing is that scientists found and studied this pattern of six degrees of separation in a number of networks, and realized it was a valid concept.

They studied human networks (society), groups of people (like Hollywood actors) power line networks, the internet (which was thought to be chaotic), the human brain, you name it... and no matter what area they investigated, the same pattern behind the theory would emerge. The conclusion was that within a certain network, there were predictable links between their individual elements, via the degrees of relationships among those individuals, being that some of them would act as hubs, having lots of connections while others would have fewer, and that this living network pattern could be translated into a mathematical equation.

Hubs: Take, for example, a company. Some of the persons would have very limited links within the organization - like janitors - while others would have a ton of links - such as the persons at the human resources management department. The latter would act as hubs, since they can easily get in touch with any given person, from the CEO down to the janitors (i´m not putting janitors down, of course). In a nutshell, any company worker would be, at most, separated by six degrees from any other worker.

The amazing part is that it was found that such structure of degrees could also be found in nature... Cells have the same organizational structure and behave just like a network. In medicine, one would tend to fight a disease by attacking the evil cells. This theory is revolutionizing medicine, because we can now concentrate upon destroying the evil cell hubs instead of all the damaging cells... And maths becomes part of the remedy, since it became possible to calculate (predict) the disease development and counter it.
... I know I might be explaining it wrong, but this is all new to me (my country is NOT an information hub ) , so please excuse me if I said something incorrect.

The theory was brought to my attention through a BBC documentary, which you can access freely at _nolinks://topdocumentaryfilms.com/six-degrees-of-separation/

I think this kind of documentary can help open our minds up to a new level of understanding (even if it only a fraction, it will be worth it).


>>>>>>  Lovely, but this is a roulette forum, right ?

Can this theory be applied to the game roulette ?
It can, IF roulette is a network.

Have you ever though of that before ? Is roulette a network ?
According to one of the definitions found here: _nolinks://nolinks.thefreedictionary.com/network
Network is "a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole"
...So,YES, it is.

Consider this :
What is the concept of roulette ? A network of (37/38) numbers that are interrelated in some fashion. (what is their interrelation? The spin´s outcomes - the events between those numbers. Pay attention to what it is said by Professor Albert-László Barabási on the mentioned video at 27´:05" ... " ...because events are never isolated, they depend on each other, they interact with each other, so we need to understand how they interact... "   

If you concur with the simplistic definition above, make a mental note:
ROULETTE IS A NETWORK.

So, we can apply the theory to roulette (or by that standard, to any game with numbers).

Six degrees of separation theory applied to roulette:
EACH INDIVIDUAL ROULETTE NUMBER IS ONLY SEPARATED FROM ANY OTHER ROULETTE NUMBER BY ONLY SIX DEGREES.


This makes roulette a predictable game. Random is not chaotic, they say an order can be found in chaos. Now you know there´s an order in roulette and at most, it can be found within six steps (degrees), being that some numbers act as hubs within the network.

How ? Beats me !    It´s just some food for thought. Brain cell fuel... 

Remember the "square of the sun" debate ?
The square of the sun is a 6 x 6 grid of 36 numbers.  Hmmm...  Maybe there´s something to it, and I don´t mean from a pure esoterical point of view, we now know it also deals with maths.

Learn how to calculate the six degrees and BOOM, you are there. Just remember to send me a PM when you do !

For a visual example, take a look at this rather curious image I found here
_nolinks://awadoftarek.com/Graphic.Design/Six.Degrees.html:

[attachthumb=#1]

What does it remind you of ? 

Well, dear friends (boys and girls), I hope I wasn´t too boring. Thank you for reading this.

This is brainstorming, answer something even if you don´t agree with me, so the thread doesn´t become waste of virtual space and becomes something fruitful at some extent.

Greetings to everyone. 

[VLSroulette]

Hey Helder, interesting read.

Thanks for bringing the topic in, it confirms you never know what you are going to find when logging in!.

I know this is only a brainstorming, but it would be great seeing how this naturally occurring networking actually translates to roulette and the position of the numbers on the disc.

[Wildcard]

I still don´t know how to apply the theory to roulette. However, I felt I couldn´t just let this one die without at least trying to get something out of it.

I play single zero wheels, so I tried to devise a method using 37 numbers. These numbers, as per the six degrees of separation theory, are a network of numbers. The network is dynamic since the outcomes of the spins that connect them cause the "degrees" (links) between numbers to be constantly changing.

This was a major concern to me. This was the "bad news".

On the other hand, if there were no steady degrees, this means I couldn´t work with a fixed set of degrees (links) between numbers, but I had to adjust them very often, because every new spin would produce a new set of connections.

I had no idea how to do something with it, it all seems a puzzle anyway... But if I was going to adjust many times, chances were I could be reaching at least one degree (translated into a win) in a short amount of spins.

That is to say a win within a few spins. This was the "good news".

Great, so what ? Still no idea. Damn ! There must be SOMETHING I can use.

(Insert wind blowing sound here...  )

Then it was analogy time. Human networks are also constantly changing. We move from elementary school to high school to (hopefully) college. We move from home to home. We move from city to city. Some even move from country to country.

What happens to us in our lifetime ? We shift the degrees of separation between us and the persons we know. We may never hear from our school friends again, but some "degrees of separation" are kept closer to us, even if we move away, persons like our fathers, brothers and other family members.

Same with roulette degrees. As roulette spits out numbers, the ones that are spun closer are the ones who´s "degrees of separation" are lower (whereas the furthest away have the higher "degree of separation").

37 numbers numbers divided by 6 (degrees of separations) equals roughly 6,16 (numbers).

So I just rounded it and considered each set of 6 unique numbers (6 or more spins to get there) as a "degree".

Remember the application of the theory: each roulette number is only separated by any other roulette number by six degrees... and by using six sets of unique numbers, it is a valid concept.
Cool ! Only thing left to devise was a betting plan.

Let us think. If you are to get to the sixth degree, where do you start ? You start from the first degree, obviously, because at the first degree is where all the persons you know directly, the ones closest to you.

In roulette terms, if you were a roulette number, you would start from the first degree, that is from the first set of numbers that are closest to you. Makes sense ? To me, it does.

So there, a method to apply the six degrees of separation theory to roulette was formulated:

METHOD:

1 – Track until you have 7 unique numbers.

(one is the number representing "you"... lal... and the other six are the first degree of separation which is a group of six numbers that are closest to "you")

Now, as you want to get to the sixth degree...

2 - FLAT BET those numbers for what would be the "first degree", that is the next six spins, stopping at any win.

3 – Once you get a win within the next six spins or end up losing all six spins, use the last spun number and repeat step 1. Exit point is when you feel you won enough for the session.

Now you ask... what about all other degrees ?

and I reply "what about them ?" Screw them, all you need to win short term is the first degree anyway.***

*** - ASSUMING THIS METHOD WORKS ALL THE TIME !!!

Next: I made a file from the first set of 100 spins that TwoCatSam posted at this thread
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/actuals-permanences/wild-jack-or-riverbelle-spins-same-wheel/

and tested the above method.... Here are the numbers and the results of the action

FIRST TEST

29
21
7
31
4
27
30   - - - > 7 unique numbers, flat bet them
4  WIN - > Nice ! Bankroll is up 29 units, now we bet on 4 and the last 6 unique numbers (actually it is the same 7 numbers to bet on since 4 repeated)
9
22
33
35
3
16  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now – 13. Use number 16 and the closest six unique numbers
34
20
10
10
26
27 - - - > Lost again. Bankroll down by 55 units. Use 27 and the 6 closest unique numbers
34 WIN - > Bankroll is now -26 units. Retrack, etc...
5
21
30
3 WIN - > Bankroll is now -18. Retrack, etc...
4
20
27 WIN - > Bankroll is now - 3 
26
8
14
12
34
0  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now -45
0  WIN - > Bankroll is now - 16
30
30
8  WIN - > Bankroll is now - 1 
27
25
35
30 WIN - > Bankroll is now + 7
9
15
18
12
16
21 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now -35
22
19
28
19
18 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 34
24
20
14
5
9
33 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now -76
30
11
36
9 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 68
9 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 39
13
9 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 17
7
28
33 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 2
11 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 27
12
28 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now +49
9 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 78
12 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 107
29
6
8
9 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now +115
17
1
32
0
13
3 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now + 73
31
24
5
30
29
13 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now +67 
33 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now +96
30 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now +125
3
19
20
32
26
27 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now + 83


100 spins gone by, plenty of exit points in the plus, and we were FLAT BETTING.

Great test, I hope I didn´t make errors and that we can get such beautiful results with further testing.

Maybe this is not new, but I don´t recall any method described exactly as I did. If you know a method that it absolutely the same as this, let me know, so I don´t make an ass of myself any further.


Another test: Now I am using TwoCatSam´s second set of 100 spins on that same thread:

SECOND TEST


6
26
25
24
14
29
20 - - - > Starting from here
12
8
22
24 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 8
33
19
0
33
31
6 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 34
8
28
10
15
23
18 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 76
29
21
8 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now -61
27
23 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 39
20
18 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now -17
14
21 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 5
4
16
18 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 20
7
28
25
13
30
32 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 22
36
31
3
3
33
10 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 64
8
11
5
20
0
5 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 106
8 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now -77
19
16
7
18
36
19 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 119
3
7 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 97
17
24
21
19 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 89
21 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 60
3 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 31
28
8
26
6
13
27
17 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 44
36
32
27 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 29
31
29
31
0
5
1 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 71
35
33
19
36
36
14 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 113
6
22
1 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 98
21
30
29
14 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 90
16
34
26


Only 3 exit points on the plus... Not so good, although a lot of wins in only 100 spins.
Maybe it´s not so great after all.
We had 20 wins on the first test and a mere 15 at this second test  Average win ratio for the first test was 5 spins. Average for the second test was 6,6 spins (humm... money management could work wonders for this, I think).


Last test for the night, if this one goes well, similar win ratio, then when I get the chance, I will test using RNG and TRNG spins.

THIRD TEST : third set of 100 spins from the above mentioned thread by TwoCatSam.


35
0
36
31
10
10
4   
10
5   - - - > Starting from here
27
33
0 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 15
10 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 44
2
33 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now + 66
32
21
25
28
3
16 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now + 24
7
14
8
10
18
26  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now -18
6
29
13
32
0
23  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now + 60
28
3
8
33
4
1 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 102
24
15
21
26
2
29  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 144
17
0
8
6
30
13 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now -186
15
6  - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 164
5
20
6  - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 149
32
1
31
33
0
13 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 155
5
4
3
23
34
26  - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 197
22
31
1
30
35
23 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 203
28
31 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 181
17
35 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 161
15
26
19
0
1 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 160
0 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 131
12
18
19 - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 116
30
9
4
4
1  - - - > WIN - > Bankroll is now - 115
28
20
5
25
0
31 - - - > Lost 6 spins. Bankroll is now - 157
16
31


The worst so far. Five exit points and only 12 wins. Average ratio of 8,33 spins for a win. Maybe we can build on this.

If we win at the sixth spin, we actually LOSE money, but this was played according to the method described, aiming to validate it.

So far, this isn´t going anywhere, as is. Any ideas ?

[VLSroulette]

ATILA progression doesn't win in infinity, but it may give your system the needed boost dear friend.

I invite you to try it with short sessions.

Kind regards.

[Wildcard]

 Vic, thank you for your words, but this was more of an exercise upon a "universal" theory, I´m not trying to develop a complete method AND a money management plan to last for eternity.

I am not going to work much more on it.

However, I did make an improvement. Get a lod of this...

I had to make some adjustments, tried a twist on the method, and came up with a new one, let´s call it "B method".


B METHOD:

1 – Track until you have 7 unique numbers.

2 – FLAT BET those numbers for what would be the "first degree", that is the next six spins, ONLY STOPPING at a win. If no win after six spins, carry on flat betting THE SAME numbers until a win occurs. (After all, our closest family – the first degree - will have to come into scene soon)

3 – Once you get a win, start over. Exit point is when you feel you won enough for the session.

I went back to the 3 sets of spins mentioned before and run them using B METHOD. Let´s have a look at the results, shall we ?


FIRST SET

29
21
7
31
4
27
30  - - > Start from here
4            WIN Bankroll +29
9
22
33
35
3
16
34
20
10
10
26
27      WIN Bankroll - 19
34      WIN Bankroll +10
5
21
30
3      WIN Bankroll +18
4
20
27    WIN Bankroll +33
26
8
14
12
34
0
0
30     WIN Bankroll +13
30     WIN Bankroll +42
8       WIN Bankroll +71
27
25
35
30    WIN Bankroll +79
9
15
18
12
16
21
22
19
28
19
18
24
20
14
5
9
33
30    WIN Bankroll - 11
11
36
9      WIN Bankroll +4
9      WIN Bankroll +33
13
9       WIN Bankroll +55
7
28
33   WIN Bankroll +70
11   WIN Bankroll +99
12
28   WIN Bankroll +121
9     WIN Bankroll +150
12   WIN Bankroll +179
29
6
8
9     WIN Bankroll +187
17
1
32
0
13
3
31
24
5
30
29   WIN Bankroll +146
13   WIN Bankroll +175
33
30   WIN Bankroll +197
3
19
20
32
26
27  End of spin data  - Bankroll at this point would be +155



SECOND SET


6
26
25
24
14
29
20 - - - > Starting from here
12
8
22
24   WIN Bankroll +8
33
19
0
33
31
6
8     WIN Bankroll -5
28
10
15
23
18
29
21
8     WIN Bankroll - 25
27
23   WIN Bankroll -3
20
18   WIN Bankroll +19
14
21   WIN Bankroll + 41
4
16
18   WIN Bankroll +56
7
28
25
13
30
32
36
31
3
3
33
10
8
11
5
20   WIN Bankroll -20
0
5     WIN Bankroll +2
8     WIN Bankroll +31
19
16
7
18
36
19
3
7
17
24
21
19
21
3
28
8      WIN Bankroll -45
26
6
13
27
17    WIN Bankroll -44
36
32
27    WIN Bankroll -29
31
29
31
0
5
1
35
33
19
36    WIN Bankroll -63
36    WIN Bankroll -34
14
6
22
1      WIN Bankroll -26
21
30
29
14    WIN Bankroll -18
16
34
26    End of spin data  - Bankroll at this point would be - 39



THIRD SET



35
0
36
31
10
10
4    
10
5   - - - > Starting from here
27
33
0     WIN Bankroll +15
10   WIN Bankroll +44
2
33   WIN Bankroll +66
32
21
25
28
3
16
7
14
8
10    WIN Bankroll +32
18
26
6
29
13
32
0
23
28     WIN Bankroll +5
3
8
33
4
1
24
15
21
26
2
29    WIN Bankroll -36
17
0
8
6
30
13
15   WIN Bankroll -49
6     WIN Bankroll -20
5
20
6     WIN Bankroll -5
32
1
31
33
0
13   WIN Bankroll -11
5
4
3
23
34
26
22
31    WIN Bankroll -31
1
30
35
23   WIN Bankroll -23
28
31   WIN Bankroll -1
17
35   WIN Bankroll +21
15
26
19
0
1     WIN Bankroll +22
0     WIN Bankroll +51
12
18
19   WIN Bankroll +66
30
9
4
4
1    WIN Bankroll +67
28
20
5
25
0
31
16
31   End of spin data  - Bankroll at this point would be +18



We can already see that B METHOD has much better performance than the previous method, but it is still flat betting.
We also notice that wins come in clusters.
At the second set of spins, we end up negative, but I think it would be a matter of time until we benefit from a cluster of wins, so we would see some recovery (if not all).

Here is a comparative table:

[table=,]
Spins Set,Method,Biggest Drawdown *,Bankroll High,Finishing Bankroll **
    1,Method A,     -76,     +125,     +83
    1,Method B,     -19,     +197,     +155
    2,Method A,     -119,     +20,     -111
    2,Method B,     -63,     +56,     -39
    3,Method A,     -203,     +66,     -171
    3,Method B,     -49,     +67,     +18
[/table]

* Biggest drawdown after a win or 6 lost spins (method A) or a after a win (method B)

**Finishing Bankroll constitutes solely and indication, can´t be truly taken to consideration, because the spin data ends at exactly 100 spins. We could chose to abandon play at a positive stage or play further to try and recoup.


Ok, we have a winner, so to speak. Method B is a pretty decent method so far considering we are flat betting all the way. I know it´s too few, but in 3 sessions, it always made at least 50+ units at some point within only 100 spins !

I think I´ll stop tweaking and consider method B as a sound betting plan. Many types of progressions / money management schemes might be used to make it more powerful, but I honestly don´t have the time to devote to roulette. I spent much time with this thread already.

As I said before, at least I got something out of this theory. Hope you did too.

Last but not least, I will grab a good chunk of TRNG spins from _nolinks.random.org and see where it goes using method B... probably it will fail big time, but if it holds for 100 spins again, maybe it is good for short sessions as Vic suggested.

Cheers

[Wildcard]

I ran a test of method B over 1500 TRNG spins. I am not posting the numbers here because the test failed.

1493 bets were placed (the first seven were for tracking). At the end, the bankroll went down to -443 units.

It did poorly due to many bets without a hit, there were long strings of losses, such as 20+ spins without a hit. The longest losing streak lasted for 34 spins (hit on the 35th spin).

It lost 4,2 %, which is MORE than expected. It dived quickly into negative figures, the lowest it got after a win was -876 units.

After that, it began a steady recovery and ended up at -443 units. The feeling i got was that it was bound to be getting closer and closer to the house edge (single zero).

So, this was a bit disappointing ( aaahh, expectations... ), however it was a good learning experience.

I got a message from Talesman posting at a reasonably known roulette forum     with a hint concerning the possible use of a six pointed star over a roulette wheel diagram as a way to implement the six degrees of separation theory to roulette. I like the idea. I think i saw this type of diagram at the famous Roberta webpages, i have to go check on them and maybe devise a C method to have fun with.

If i do, i keep you posted.

Can anyone help me with this star idea ? I am going to investigate it, but any help i get is precious.

See you later.

[bombus]

My tips...

The six pointed star is a big pansy and would never hold up in battle against the mighty five pointed star.

--------------------------------

I do like your out of the box thinking, but may be you need to keep all six degrees inside the box.


Good luck with your research.

[Wildcard]

Hey, despite your witty remark, i thank you for your colaboration, bombus. 

Please bear in mind that this is not a roulette project per se, it´s just a matter of exercising the mind and learning.

I love thinking outside the box, i usually get very creative. 

This theory is not my usual line of "work", but it can do no harm, i guess.

Maybe at some extent the degrees are to be found outside the box, inside the wheel... At least it´s round and what goes around, comes around. 

See you.

[Wildcard]

Alrighty !!

We can´t use a six-pointed star upon a roulette wheel, because there are 37 numbers on it. If we remove the zero, then we have a perfect fit.

People that are familiar with Numeris Titanus teachings are used to deal with 36 numbers, placing the zero alongside one or more of them according to their beliefs.

For my upcoming tests i will leave zero out. This will probably cause having to wait for one or more spins if i play like method A is described in case i lose the last of six spins due to zero. That´s fine by me!


Ok, if we group the numbers that are six frets apart we get this arrangement:

>>> 32 - 25 - 36 - 5 - 14 - 7

(on the wheel we have 32, then, after six pockets comes 25, then 36 and so on)

>>> 15 - 17 - 11 - 24 - 31 - 28

>>> 19 - 34 - 30 - 16 - 9 - 12

>>> 4 - 6 - 8 - 33 - 22 - 35

>>> 21 - 27 - 23 - 1 - 18 - 3

>>> 2 - 13 - 10 - 20 - 29 - 26


For the lazy ones like me here´s a nifty ordered table (makes it easier to place bets):

5 - 7 - 14 - 25 - 32 - 36

11 - 15 - 17 - 24 - 28 - 31

9 - 12 - 16 - 19 - 30 - 34

4 - 6 - 8 - 22 - 33 - 35

1 - 3 - 18 - 21 - 23 - 27

2 - 10 - 13 - 20 - 26 - 29


I will test this when i have the time, it will be done manually, so be patient.

[Wildcard]

Quick update: I did a test using...

"C method" : flat betting the number that was just spun plus the other 5 numbers from the above arrangement (table) for 6 spins.

Flat betting and changing to the last spun number after 6 spins (or more should zero appear at the 6th spin) because if we played until we get a hit, then we woul only be using ONE group of 6 numbers all the time...

The test was performed using the 3 trots of spins posted above.

It did well enough to prove it´s a failure !!

Here are the results

1st set  (98 spins – 97 bets placed):
Drawdown =  -42 units  
Highest bankroll = +294 units
Finishing bankroll = +246 units
R.O.I. = 42,3%  
Std = + 2,00

Please don´t get too excited by this result, I think it was mainly due to repeaters and a considerable amount of LUCK.


2nd set  (100 spins – 99 bets placed):
Drawdown = -264  
Highest bankroll = +00 (-24 after being negative)    
Finishing bankroll = -234
R.O.I. =-39,4 %  
Std = - 1,65

3nd set  (100 spins – 98 bets placed):
Drawdown =  -150  
Highest bankroll = +36    
Finishing bankroll = -120  
R.O.I. = -20,4 %  
Std = -0,79

No need to go any further, it isn´t steady, in fact it´s extremely volatile.


I would also like to make one last test for the theory.

This time around it will use the last spun number plus 3 numbers on each side of it (on the wheel)... for... you guessed it ... six spins.... Let´s say it´s D method OR until a hit .... It will be E method, and that´s that.

AGAIN, I do not endorse any of these methods, they are simple frames for the possible use of the theory.... Actually, I don´t recommend ANY of these.

The last test will take me more time, WHEN I get the time, so it WILL take time

Thank you.

[Bo0Merang]

lool  nice one  mate  if you like thinking out  of the  box   make tabs  for this/    i will  try explain  make disc tag  with  any of two hits numbers  4 example   7 and 28   the next spin will be  most  probably  on  the next side wheel  tiers du cilindre  now  this  is  just one example  we will say that to  connection  to  next  number will be 18 places plus4 to left and 4 to right  now  take  other form  (just example  8 10 and make the same and so  on   when  u  done you  will be have wheel tab which  will tell you  where to  bet after  diferent  lands figures (each  figure check 100 times and from 100 make probabilyty ) you  will  see  exactly  random  habiyng how  this work  and why  this work. the figures are endless but not that much i can say that person  whoo  give work on  that will have a good flatbet system  for real work.

[Wildcard]

Man, i never thought it would take me soooo long to do a test on 3 sets of spins... Work, family, errands, etc. take up almost all of my time, i need vacations and i need them now 

I performed a test using D method, these were the results:

1st set = - 175 units

2nd set = - 225 units

3rd set = + 243 units

I´ve got to tell you after the first 2 sets of spins, i thought this method would never yield a positive result...

Then came the 3rd set and bang! ... a positive session. Guess that goes to show how strange this game can be.

After such results, there´s no need to test E method, as that would be a waste of time.

Bo0Merang, thank you for your tips, but in all honesty I am in no position to give this theory further investigation... time is more than precious for me, i will focus on other ideas that show better potential.

Another day, another idea, chapter closed, the end ( for now ?).

Take good care and enjoy the upcoming holidays, Xmas, 2010, life in general and roulette in particular.   

[pins]

if you use the six apart. 0.25.    32.17. and so on. i think you will get better results.

[pins]

-