Rare events within the Wheel

[Rheti]

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.

[Rheti]

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.

[Rheti]

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..

[Poit]

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.

[mistarlupo]

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....

Make it million bets and then post your results again. Beating million spins is not so hard.

[mistarlupo]

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.

[Noble Savage]

Thanks Mistarlupo. You saved me some time. lol

[Bayes]

What 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

[VLS]

Here's an excerpt from Saliu's book:

nolinks://nolinks2.xlibris.com/book_excerpt.asp?bookid=73470

[HansHuckebein]

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? 

[Rheti]

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

[Noble Savage]

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.

[mistarlupo]

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.

[Spike!]

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.

[Rheti]

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 ?

[Rheti]

-