I was playing on Dublinbet casino the other night and a group of 5 numbers never showed up for 103 spins.
I just hope that particular combination were not someone's lucky numbers or something. It would have killed them.
I have personally never seen that happen before in many years of watching roulette.
The other day when I was playing I noticed a double street didn't show for 73 spins. It can get worse than that.
Here are some more stats:
460 - 540 spins with a straight up not showing. (maths expectancy is a hit once every 37 spins)
309 splits with a split not showing. (maths expectancy is a hit once every 18.5 spins or so)
178 spins with a street not showing. (maths expectancy is a hit once every 12.3 spins or so)
155 spins with a corner(square) not showing. (maths expectancy is a hit once every 4.6 spins or so)
93 spins with a line (double-street) not showing... (maths expectancy is a hit every 4.6 spins or so)
36-40 spins with a dozen/column not showing.(maths expectancy is a hit once every 3 spins or so)
20- 36 spins with any even money chance not showing. (expectancy is a hit once every two spins)
10 numbers may sleep for about 45-55 spins
So based on this, the "record" for a 5 number no-show should lie between 93 - 155 spins.
It pays to keep stats like this firmly in mind when playing "sleepers". Records are always being broken.
@Fender,
They were all around the wheel, but normally after about 74 numbers, there are maybe only a few sleepers still left to come out. To go almost three lots of 37 spins with 5 numbers still absent is pretty rare from what I have seen.
Until recently, I had never really looked into sleepers all that much. I would much rather continue to bet them sleeping than wake up. I am sure waiting for something to appear has killed many a bankroll. You only risk one bet on hoping for something to continue, by the looks of it, you can lose a lot waiting for something to show.
Yes, if you see 10 reds in a row you're always better off betting for it to continue, you can only lose once. But I've gotten in huge arguments where they always say 'the odds of it ending are the same', so bet for it to end. No, YOU do that, I only want to lose once.
Spike,
I can kind of see your logic - you think that betting a trend to continue is safer because, as you say, you have only one bet to lose. But the fact remains that you could just as easily bet once for a trend to end, then look for another trend to bet against. Rinse and repeat. No-one is forcing you to stick it out to the bitter end (perhaps of your bankroll).
Conversely, you could bet on a dozen trends to continue and lose a dozen times.
Which is better?
It's a coin flip. :whistle:
because I never record more than 100 spins as part of my own study>>>
Anything more than 100 takes too much time, why bother. Right?
Bayes great stats .I was thinking of playing 2 coner bets each spin now i am wondering how long 2 corners could sleep for any idea or maby i should for get it .Thanks for looking .Colin
100 IS THE PERCENTAGE NUMBER. Its the key to taking roulette to pieces.>>
You think that anything and everything that can happen in roulette happens in 100 spins? How about the number that sleeps for over 432 spins, how did that get around the 'magic number' of 100?
They are FOOLS GOLD. I advise everyone to avoid them.>>
Well, they aren't covered in the 'magic 100', they must be avoided at all costs. You really should put all your roulette knowledge in a book and share it with the gambling world. I guarantee they'v never seen anything like it.
QuoteI pity the fool
Fender, are you Mr T? :haha:
So you would never bet less than 6 numbers right?
QuoteBayes great stats .I was thinking of playing 2 coner bets each spin now I am wondering how long 2 corners could sleep for any idea
Colin, I don't know but 2 corners is 8 numbers so I'm guessing somewhere between 50 and 90 (10 numbers and 6 numbers respectively). About 70?
Straights are for dreamers like a lottery.>>>
That could be the 2nd chapter title in your book, the 1st being 'The Magic 100'. It will be a revalation to the gambling world, it will make Invisable Math and Hidden Math obsolete.
Spike do you believe anyone beate roulette LONGTERM?>>>
There is no long term, there's only the next spin. Thats all you have to beat. The next spin. (now watch as he steals that from me and claims he said it)
Can you give A STRAIGHT ANWSER?>>>
The long term has existed in roulette for over 200 years, make a bet and you're in the long term, how else. If you see 10 reds in a row, somewhere in the world at that exact second there is 10 blacks in a row. Balance. All you have to worry about is the next spin, the long term is taking care of itself.
How can anyone beat it longterm, when for the player, there is no longterm, there is only the next spin? You don't make any sense.
I like Spike's way of thinking.
In a game of blackjack, you may have a true count of +10 and you then get a round of low value cards. You still have a shot on the next round because the true count has risen.
In roulette, you get one spin to be right or wrong. The wheel has no memory, if you lose that next bet, it is not going to compensate for you on the spin after. It is a game of independent trials, therefore any progression or any betting strategy that uses more than one spin looking for the same result to come is just an example of gamblers fallacy.
Bayes Thanks for your answer . Colin
>>It is a game of independent trials, therefore any progression or any betting strategy that uses more than one spin looking for the same result to come is just an example of gamblers fallacy.>>
Exactly. Roulette resets itself after every spin. The only way to beat it is to have some idea whats coming next and make a guess. Mechanical systems and progressions are doomed because the casino has the edge, not you.
You don't have to be right all the time, in fact you can be wrong a little bit more than you are right and still break even or come out slightly ahead with no progressions and just flat betting, how's that for a neat trick.
You are not going to always win in one spin.>>>
How many spins do they let you bet on in your casino? In mine they only let me bet on the next spin. I asked if I could bet on the next 10 spins all at once and they said no. So I only worry about the next spin. When you use a progression, you are, in a sense, betting on the next several spins. This can be very dangerous because its hard enough to be right about just 1 spin, if you're wrong about the next several, you're really screwed.
Here lot of people talk about money management, long term, quitting ahead. . .
When the game itself is designed to be random. . . what's this long term or quitting ahead? Next spin can be a winner or a loser. . . .
Remember the guy who put some $100,000 on one bet. . . can we go to him and ask for long term test, I don't think so. . .
So I will just say "All in the game". . . Go and play the game as you like. . . If possible understand randomness and go ahead. . . if not, it is not a crime. . . Enjoy playing roulette. . . .
But the fact remains that you could just as easily bet once for a trend to end, then look for another trend to bet against.>>>
Why do all that work when you have a trend right in front of you that you can only lose once on and possibly have a string of wins on? Betting against the trend you have ONLY one win possible. Betting with it, you never know how many more it will go.
@ SPIKE
Yes, if you see 10 reds in a row you're always better off betting for it to continue, you can only lose once. But I've gotten in huge arguments where they always say 'the odds of it ending are the same', so bet for it to end. No, YOU do that, I only want to lose once
The real answer is the chances that you pick the right time to change is not on your side. So it's not true the odds are not the same.
Here is why it could go to 32 reds but only ten came out so there are many more ways for the next spin to be RED so the odds are not the same. I hope this helps.
You can win
But I've gotten in huge arguments where they always say 'the odds of it ending are the same'>>>
They are exactly the same. But that doesn't mean betting for it to continue isn't a better bet.
Quote from: Spike! on May 10, 2010, 06:46:04 PM
Why do all that work when you have a trend right in front of you that you can only lose once on and possibly have a string of wins on? Betting against the trend you have ONLY one win possible. Betting with it, you never know how many more it will go.
If that did give any edge we'd all be swimming in cash already.
Look into the law of series and you might find out why what you're saying is pure fallacy, just like thinking the earth is flat (just because it looks so from your limited visual perspective) is a fallacy.
@ Spike
I will put it another way. If I was to bet you $100. 00 for you to pick the right time for it to change for any long run's of any color you would lose more often then you would win. . No one can pick the time it will change more often then when it really does change
I hope this helps
You can win
Quote from: You can win on May 10, 2010, 11:12:26 PM
@ Spike
I will put it another way. If I was to bet you $100. 00 for you to pick the right time for it to change for any long run's of any color you would lose more often then you would win. . No one can pick the time it will change more often then when it really does change
I hope this helps
You can win
I've explained that numerous times.
It's 2010 yet some people still believe in that John Patrick BS. Follow the trend, discipline, money management, quitting while you're ahead...
Oh well.
If that did give any edge we'd all be swimming in cash already.>>>
I never said it gives an edge or beats the law of series. It doesn't. I'm just saying for that particular series at that time, betting to continue is a better bet. The odds aren't better, the probability isn't better. Its a betting strategy, which is always better than none.
@ Spike
Yet another way.
So you are saying that you can pick when the color will change more times right then wrong . So if you think about it in real life it can't be done by using a flat bet the odds state that it can't be done.
So the answer I gave is right stay with the color but only one then get off.
You can win
So you are saying that you can pick when the color will change more times right then wrong>>>
Never said that either. All I said was, to a trender, its a better bet. Trending is an art form that takes years to master because there are no hard and fast rules.
@ Spike
So you are saying that you can pick when the color will change more times right then wrong>>>
Never said that either. All I said was, to a trender, its a better bet. Trending is an art form that takes years to master because there are no hard and fast rules.
Yes I know you didn't say that I was only saying I'm right because you can't pick the exact time when it will change you would lose more often the you would win because it can go much higher then ten. There for the odds are on your side.
You can win