can anyone program this?

[simon]

As I understand it what the author is saying is that if you isolate a 4 spin sequence, and 3 of 4 possible outcomes hit in the first 3 spins, then because these 3 outcomes are eligible to repeat again,  the combined possibility of each of these 3 different outcomes hitting again on the 4th spin reduces the probability of outcome 4 to hit on the 4th spin, in the same way that you will never see 36 numbers hit in 36 spins, because once a number hits it is eligible to hit again and the repeats are inevitable.

I am confused about the formula on p.7 which seems to indicate that there is only about a 10% chance for event 4 to hit on spin 4 after the first 3 events hit in the first 3 spins (9.37% chance-- but *anything* less than 25% would be great news.)

[gizmotron]

Simon, that better chance you are hoping to confirm only happens before all four events take place. You are hoping to have those better odds on the fourth spin. They only exist on spin 1 of the four. I read that paper. You can't combine replacement odds with non-replacement odds to formulate a true equation. Roulette never has a condition of non-replacement. It is ridiculous that the author attempted to pass this off as a valid argument.

BTW, your author has no consideration for the short term effect of the characteristics of randomness in the forms of trends, dominances, and patterns. I believe that most people are stuck on attempting to see a mathematical weakness in multiple spins where one will never be found. If each spin is independent then there is no force or math that prevents patterns and trends from forming from observance of past spin results. They are never predictive but they are always either a continuance or they aren't a continuance.

[simon]

hmmm, bummer.  well I will mull over what you said.  thank you for your input.

hmmm, I'm sorry, don't hit me for being so thick but I don't get it.  you say  "You are hoping to have those better odds on the fourth spin. They only exist on spin 1 of the four."  so what has changed just because I am tracking the sequences and wait till spin 4?  I guess this is similar to predicting that the next 4 spins won't be all black, which is not the same as predicting that the 4th spin won't be black after the first 3 were?  are you saying that the only way to set up the bet correctly is to bet that spin 1 will be A, spin 2 will be B, spin 3 will be C, and spin 4 won't be D and there is absolutely no other way to bet (with advantage) that spin 4 won't be D, and that skipping the first 3 bets instead of playing them achieves nothing?  yes that's probably what you're saying, but if for example we track 18 nos without repeat, and if it were feasible to bet on all these 18 numbers till one repeated within 36 spins, wouldn't that be a good bet?  It's not feasible to bet on 18 numbers to repeat within the next 18 spins, but the bet I am trying to work is feasible (if the logic was, anyway.)

[Number Six]

Regarding the prestigious mathematician, things do tend to conform to a normal distribution, but it doesn't happen every ten or twenty spins....that is a classic misconception. It tends to happen over many more spins, which is why there can never be an advantage in waiting for a specific sequence and then betting with or against it. Even if you bet black after 10 reds, your chances of winning do not change, and the probability of getting another red only becomes smaller if you were betting for black from the first spin. Therein is the fallacy, there's nothing debatable about it.

[gizmotron]

I'll round the numbers so you can see it better:

spin 1 of 4 = 2% odds

spin 2 of 4 = 4% odds

spin 3 of 4 = 6% odds

spin 4 of 4 = 25% odds

On spin 1 all four spins must come true for the condition to be true all the way. For you to get those odds you must bet all starting points and hope that every one will last to all 4 spins being true. Only that does not happen. In fact, only 25% of the time does the last condition come true after the other three have occurred.

So look at this for the 18. If you bet  the other 18 for the next 18 spins you expect to win half of them in the long term averages. If you bet one same number for 18 spins then you expect to win half of those in the long term averages. You are stuck on multiple spins = creative combinations. If you walk up to a table that has had thirty reds in a row you should not expect the number three hitting on the next spin because of the number of times the first street has not hit in the past tens spins. There is no logic in combining spins into multiple combinations of separate events. That is the primary flaw. You can't play multiple bets on more than one spin at a time and get paid on one spin for another.

[simon]

ok I will think about what you said, I guess you're right (unfortunately.)  Six I'm glad you saw this thread, as you can read the document I mentioned to you before when you were experimenting with 2 dozen betting and I recommended backing the 2 previous dozens that hit, but I guess that idea is getting shot down here fast.

[Number Six]

Yes, I'll read it. I personally am not saying there isn't merit in what you're talking about, but it sounds a bit fallacious. I actually scrapped the two dozen betting for reasons that I think one of us mentioned backed in the divisor thread. It was based on a similar principle and by default you would bet the last dozen out along with another selected ad hoc. It didn't really work. I have concluded that it's unwise to bet more then 18 numbers (not because the 2 dozen bet selection failed, but because of the wager compared to the return) therefore I concentrate on the ECs now.

[gizmotron]

I have concluded that it's unwise to bet more then 18 numbers (not because the 2 dozen bet selection failed, but because of the wager compared to the return) therefore I concentrate on the ECs now.

I have found that I'm better at 2 dozen / 1 dozen betting as a balancing act versus the EC's. If I see a lot of singles I bet the other 2 dozens and if I see a lot of repeats (doubles in series) I bet the same dozen to repeat. It's a slow moving transition when things tend to go one type or the other with consistency. The only thing that kills that is when it's very choppy. At times doubles dominate and at times singles dominate very strongly. If you are not married to two dozens at a time, 24 numbers, then you can adjust to following the last 12 numbered size group, whatever it may be. I track 4 different sets of 36/38 numbers for each group. Two are based on the table layout and two are based on the inside numbers. I just do way better with this than I do with the EC's. During rapid chop I search for something else in other groups. Sometimes I go to the EC's because they are in powerful domination conditions. I just keep looking for styles that I like. So in the end what really counts is session management. I use start BR limits in order to limit downturns. I use win limits to get out of a session while in an up condition. It all runs very closely to balanced.  I let all win streaks to go to the first loss.

[gizmotron]

-