How is this for a statistic!

[sherminator]

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.

[Bayes]

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.

[sherminator]

@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.

[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.

[Bayes]

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. 

[Spike!]

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?

[Colin]

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

[Spike!]

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?

[Spike!]

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.

[Bayes]

I pity the fool

Fender, are you Mr T?  

So you would never bet less than 6 numbers 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

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?

[Spike!]

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!]

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)

[Spike!]

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.

[Spike!]

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.

[sherminator]

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.

[sherminator]

-