I was inspired by Ion Saliu and his bets on the double dozen...
" The 66.6% probability offers a tremendous advantage over probabilities around 50%. First and foremost, the losing streaks are definitely shorter. There is a 99.9% degree of certainty that the losing streak will be no longer than 6 when p=66.6%. "
Translated it to the innner bets and 3 12 sequence movements.
Angels: first six last six
Q3: 10-11-13-14-17-18-20-21-25-26-28-29
Other: 7-8-9-12-15-16-19-22-23-24-27-30
+ covering the zero = a 25 unit Bet.
Say time and money is not a problem.
The bet is a single bet on 25 numbers + 1 progression to the Limit of the Casino.
Here in Holland it's 20 euro min-400 euro max.
Say you see :
1 angel
2 angel
3 angel
4 angel
5 angel
the bet will be on q3 and other + zero as a coverage
120 as a start progression to 400.
I analyzed 46500 spins from Germany
Here's the breakdown.
winner 6 231 times
winner 7 80 times
Total 321 times in roughly 150 days.
Losing : 30 times
Money:
120*25= 3000 // when winning: 1320 euro
400*25=10000 / when winning: 1400 euro
Average: 1340 euro
Losing: 13000 euro
In Rotterdam the frequency is on average 25 spins 13 hrs long 320 spins a day.
Analysis of the winnings:
first 10.000 spins : a hit within 6 hrs
sec. 10.000 spins: a hit within 5 hrs
thd. 10.000 spins a hit within 6 hrs
frth 10.000 spins a hit within 9 hrs
last 7.0000 spins a hit within 5 hrs
so on average 2 hits a day// low zero high 3 hits.
You need a recovery of 10... so to be safe say 12 = 72 hrs. divide by 13 hrs = 5.5 day
Analysis of the losers:
quite accurate
hrs days
129 10.0 big profit // period before quite heavy losers I guess.
19 1.5 a minus
99 7.6 a plus
156 12.0 a big plus
51 3.9 a minus
5 0.4 danger
5 0.4 danger
90 6.9 a plus
128 9.9 a big plus
47 3.6 a minus
55 4.2 a minus
98 7.5 a plus
122 9.4 a big plus
59 4.5 a minus
23 1.8 a big minus
12 0.9 danger
64 4.9 a minus
22 1.7 danger
93 7.2 a plus
5 0.4 danger
5 0.4 danger
84 6.4 plus
11 0.8 danger
86 6.6 plus
105 8.1 a big plus
42 3.2 minus
32 2.4 minus
15 1.2 danger
202 15.5 a big big plus
94 7.2 a plus.
How would you attack this ? If again time and money is'nt a problem.
If I had played that 150 days I would have had a profit.
in %
91% 311 416920
9% 30 -390000
100% 341 26920
But if you look closer: ( Look at the the rate of 9 in relation to 10.
Rate in % of spins
6 231 2.9 0.5183%
7 80 3.6 0.1505%
8 22 3.1 0.0477%
9 7 7.0 0.0151%
10 1 0.0047%
11 0.0015%
12 0.0004%
You can imagine that a 10 will arrive soon..
If you do an extrapolation (not that it's interesting) to let's say 465000 spins a 12 is the limit.
As a start:
a Team of seven.. (friends or relatives) --- each of them watching 13 hrs a day.
No problem here in Holland, you can sit nearby a betting machine// just analyzing and follow the spins by a monitor for that high roll 400 euro table.. If it's time you can walk within a minute to that table..
the Risk: 13000 euro by seven = 1857 euro..
14 seems to be the magic number. I am sure there is some very complicated mathematics to show why.... I don't know the 'why', I know the 'what'. After X amount of spins, a single dozen will hit no more than 14 times in a row (i.e the two dozens you are betting on will lose 14 times).
Don't ask me why its 14. Why not 13? or 15? well thats because it isn't 13 or 15, its 14! ......... try it out for your self..... get a crap load of live spins, and check the stats... albeit on ONE very rare occasions (ONCE mind you) it hit 18 times!!!............ every other occurrence was 14... 3 million live spins and also 30 million RNG spins speak for it self.
I wrote a program that started betting once it reached 9 in a row (betting on the other two dozens).... and yes, after millions of spins I was in profit.... but only a few hundred dollars......... hardly worth actually deploying such a method into real life, EVEN with a bot playing it.... it would probably average 5 cents a day of profit.... not worth it.
Quote from: Poit on June 03, 2010, 10:02:34 PMI wrote a program that started betting once it reached 9 in a row (betting on the other two dozens).... and yes, after millions of spins I was in profit....
Make it million
bets and then post your results again. Beating million
spins is not so hard.
Quote from: Rheti on May 31, 2010, 04:03:42 PM
I was inspired by Ion Saliu and his bets on the double dozen...
" The 66.6% probability offers a tremendous advantage over probabilities around 50%. ..."
What a stupid statement to make?! In my point of view,
- betting 2 dozens (~66% of the numbers) requires 2 units
- betting even chances (~50% of numbers) requires 1 unit.
So you risk
100% more units for just
16% more coverage? Doesn't sound so "tremendous" to me. But essentially, all bets provide equal odds and there's no difference at all.
Thanks Mistarlupo. You saved me some time. lol
QuoteWhat a stupid statement to make?!
Ion Saliu's stuff on probability is sound enough in some respects, but you would think that he must know that an advantage comes from the
relationship between the probability and payout, not merely the probability alone. The fact that he deliberately misleads people makes him a scammer in my book. He also has a massive ego and is very arrogant. A review of his new book here:
nolinks://nolinks.free-press-release.com/news-foreword-clarion-review-of-probability-theory-live-by-ion-saliu-1272749264.html (nolinks://nolinks.free-press-release.com/news-foreword-clarion-review-of-probability-theory-live-by-ion-saliu-1272749264.html)
Here's an excerpt from Saliu's book:
nolinks://nolinks2.xlibris.com/book_excerpt.asp?bookid=73470 (nolinks://nolinks2.xlibris.com/book_excerpt.asp?bookid=73470)
so from mistarlupo's calculation: does that mean if you compare the even chances to a single doz. or col. the doz. would be a better choice because you would get a 100% higher win for just 30% less coverage? ???
Quote from: mistarlupo on June 04, 2010, 08:07:29 AM
What a stupid statement to make?! In my point of view,
- betting 2 dozens (~66% of the numbers) requires 2 units
- betting even chances (~50% of numbers) requires 1 unit.
So you risk 100% more units for just 16% more coverage? Doesn't sound so "tremendous" to me. But essentially, all bets provide equal odds and there's no difference at all.
I do'nt agree..
Dominance is quite common within double dozen..
I just checked 255 spins from Germany..
Dominance of 8: 11
Dominance of 9: 03
Dominance > 9: 03
Quote from: Rheti on June 04, 2010, 02:47:29 PM
I just checked 255 spins
If you want to learn something about randomness, don't look at a sample of 255 spins, it's a drop in the ocean.
Quote from: HansHuckebein on June 04, 2010, 01:29:47 PM
so from mistarlupo's calculation: does that mean if you compare the even chances to a single doz. or col. the doz. would be a better choice because you would get a 100% higher win for just 30% less coverage? ???
I just gave an example how you can see things in another way. Unfortunately, all bets have the same play to payout ratio and no advantage can be attained.
all bets have the same play to payout ratio and no advantage can be attained.>>>
This concept is the hardest to grasp for most people, it seems. Its a fact there are no 'better' bets in roulette, they are all equal. Except for the 0-1-2-3, and who cares about that. Yet you hear all the time EC's are 'sucker bets' or never bet anything but the inside. A nice way to find out that all bets are equal is pretend you have a huge edge and try and find the best bet to exploit that edge. You'll soon find out it doesn't matter where you bet, you'll come to the same amount won very fast on all of them.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 03:11:09 PM
If you want to learn something about randomness, don't look at a sample of 255 spins, it's a drop in the ocean.
Really ?
No signal in 47.000 spins.. a 5 consecutive loss in fenders system.
Last night I noticed (on paper..lol) in real world a five... :skull:
This will help you gain insight into the Zone
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/gambling-and-roulette-related/gambler's-fallacy-the-zone-and-the-stupid-gene/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/gambling-and-roulette-related/gambler's-fallacy-the-zone-and-the-stupid-gene/)