Laws of roulette

[TwoCatSam]

tuck

Are you speaking of the "Magic 5" system?

The author leaves out an important piece of information.

Sam

[admin]

Hello Tuck, [smiley=welcome/welcome08.png]

I'm glad you are having success with your tests, only thing is I think you missed a bit of typing here:

I'm off to test some more and if it works

...if it works... Will share it with the friends here? [smiley=GG/emot_happy.gif]

Best regards.

[TwoCatSam]

winkel

tuck may find your data useful, but I fail to understand it.  What are you trying to convey?

Sam

[winkel]

Hi TCS,

I would like to explain this in a new thread.
But therefore I need a hint ho to use excel-cells in an post.

what do I need to create exact rows and columns?
in germany it works with
[dohtml] an

What do i use with this forum-software?

br
winke

l

[TwoCatSam]

winkel

I wish I could help you on that, but I am pretty excel challenged.  I'm a pencil and paper man.

Sam

[Tucktuckster]

No idea what the magic 5 system is.

On my comment about going of to test - that was just enthusiasm on the initial results.

i still havent run enough tests to see if it will work.

i'm still looking at the best stats on it and once i have a view on what could work i'll post here. no poit wasting anyones time on a dead duck.

[Tucktuckster]

oket dokeey - been doing some more testing and its time to post more detail since i think i may have stumbled on something interesting and there are some good brains on here who can probably help / improve my thoughts.

I look for a sequence of 12 numbers where there are no repeats in last 12. ie 12 different numbers. example below:
4
7
23
29
27
5
21
13
34
18
3
25

based on calcs - there is a normal number of repeaters and non repaters in say 36 spins, 24 spins and 12 spins. Clearly a run of 12 is underhit. does this mean there will be hits or repeaters. no. however - on my tests so far, it is returning a profit if we play for the next 12 spins.

so after these 12 numbers we bet the 12 numbers and any additions to spin 24.

so spin 13 = 12 units staked.
28 = lose. therefore we are -12 and next bet is 13u and 28 added to list.
23 = win. +23 so +11
18 = win = +23 so +34 overall
25 =win =+23 so +57 overall.

now is a twist. on +50 i was thinking of stopping. i also tested on +45 since 50 is my target and i normally stop if i am within 10% of target win (based on stock market experience where a target price often falls just short!)

anyway - for example i carry on.
7 win 23
10 lose -13 (now bet 14 numers)
1 lose -14 (now bet 15 numvers)
23 w +21
4 w +21
6 lose - now bet 16
5 w +20
21 2 +20.

so normally i would be +57. if i carry on, its a mega session of +120.....

are all sessions good like this = no. do sessions end negative = yes indeed. i have different numbers at work and is not doing as well but only tested 100 spins.

on this set of numbers - 693 spins of wheel. instances to bet =16. so not many.

flat betting on all 12 spins = +608.
flt betting up to +50 or more = +574
flat betting up to +45 or more = +517

it maybe i have good set of numbers so far for this method and it will fail badly soon.

another thing i notice - is that on the 12 spins played - on every one there is a sequence of 2 wins or more in a row on each one.....

losing attacks = 4. -47, -49, -6, -3.

Two in a row in one instance. Highest wins = 157, 123,120,102.

not tried any progression as yet but i suspect one may be good if on a bad run.

will test more and post results on here

[bloomone2002]

tucktuckster, i think you have a very interesting concept. i suggest you move your post to start your own thread maybe into the testing zone area, where it can get better testing and system feedback attention by others.
Bloom

[TwoCatSam]

I agree

If you're going to post test results, why not put it under testing?

SamSamster

[Tucktuckster]

i prob will.

it holds up quite well.

i have a list of actuals and on these from spins 1000-2000, turbos 4 unit repeater one gets killed. It doesnt like repeaters in these spins.

this one also suffered - since lack of repeaters but loss was a lot smaller and nothing in comparison to plus results of first 1000 spins. but this analysis at work and me at home.

the one that led me on to this was doing similar with the 12's. ie 1-12, 13-24 and 25-36. I testd for 8000 spins and had over 1000u profit at end flat bets but ups and downs.

i am sure with progression we can do better.

[Spike]

The only law that matters in roulette is the Law of Series. Everything else is irrelevent.

[Renopolis]

So what is your theory on this.  What if you were playing on a NO ZERO WHEEL ? Not a Single Zero, or a Double Zero Wheel, but a Wheel with just the 36 numbers of 1 through 36 and NO ZERO's.  Since this would completely eliminate the "House Edge" would you then be racking in chips faster than you can carry them to the cashiers cage ?   Think you would ? I really think you wouldn't.  The "House Edge" is there all right; but more than anything else it is used as AN EXCUSE for losing when the real culprit is plain old weak play.  The big MYTH is alls you have to do is plunk down any bet at any time and the outcome will always be the true odds minus the "House Edge". That MYTH is one of many that makes Roulette THE MOST MATHEMATICALY MISUNDERSTOOD GAME in the WORLD. The mathematical truth would be learned very quickly on the above mentioned Hypothetical NO ZERO WHEEL; and that is plopping down any bet at any time is lazy play akin to say a tennis player just standing in one spot on the court hoping the ball comes to that spot so she doesn't have to move to much to hit it.  There, in actuality is nothing passive about winning at this game; in other words you don't get your share of the mathematical equation just by plopping down a bet; you must be Active in following the Trends; and the Trends are the mathematices that dictate that all 37 to 1 propositions BEHAVE EXACTLY THE SAME WAY IN A LONG RUN; Sometimes coming in at greater; and sometimes lesser that true odds. Therefore the MYTH that dictates "its silly to follow Trends" because "the ball has no memory" is what in-of-itself is silly and the strong MATH at play in this game dictates that like the Tennis Player who must be active to win, the roulette player must also be active to win, and that activity is simply understanding the math and using it to ones advantage. Thats what you'll do if you truly want to win, but first you MUST STOP USING THE "HOUSE EDGE" as your convenient excuse for why you are not doing so now.   RENOPOLIS

[Herb]

Renopolis wrote: Therefore the MYTH that dictates "its silly to follow Trends" because "the ball has no memory" is what in-of-itself is silly and the strong MATH at play in this game dictates that like the Tennis Player who must be active to win, the roulette player must also be active to win, and that activity is simply understanding the math and using it to ones advantage. Thats what you'll do if you truly want to win, but first you MUST STOP USING THE "HOUSE EDGE" as your convenient excuse for why you are not doing so now.   RENOPOLIS
--------------------------------------------------------

Renopolis,

I think you need to read about gambler's fallacy.  Unfortunately, the house edge is still a big problem.  You can't win in the long run just chasing trends.  The house advantage is like compounding interest for the casino.  The longer you play, the more you lose.

Good Luck.

-Herb

[Renopolis]

Oh hi Herb,

   Yes Herb, I already know what you think before you say it OR think it. I introduced you to a seed of NEW THINKING there, but it just couldn't make a the slightest indentation in the thick steel walls of your pre-programed mind. Not putting you down personaly; but you didn't address or even allude to any of the more-than-valid points I raised, so that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

By the way Son, I know more about the "TRUE HOUSE EDGE" than you know about any subject under the sun, and to set the record straight; I AM NOT A GAMBLER. When I go into a Casino I invest in a series of known Mathematical Patterns and Ratios using a Mathematicaly Balanced, sound and viable methodology.  You are the absolute CLASSIC EXAMPLE of what I alluded to in the previous post; in that you are so obsessed with what you perceive as the House Percentage (which does exist; but its true mathematical characteristics are completely unknown to the masses), that you automaticaly chalk up every one of your losses to it, instead of your inadequate methods and decision making skills , and therefore will spend your whole lifetime not being motivated to actually improve your play and results by understanding the Mathematical TRUTH of the games you are playing.  I for one, have no problem with that.
    Go ahead and lecture me on fallicies (which I understand and you don't) untill your satisfied that your next loss can fully attributed to what you think you know; and if you need me -- I'LL BE AT THE CASHIERS CAGE. (Its not bragging if its true) Please keep playing just the way your playing and make sure you stay closed to ever learning anything new. REGARDS; RENOPOLIS.

[TwoCatSam]

OK, altogether now, anda one anda two anda three

What a sack of t**ds!

[TwoCatSam]

-