Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Very interesting method I found, seeking your opinions guys..

Started by RouletteFanatic, July 02, 2010, 08:21:58 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RouletteFanatic




The table above shows the average of which spins would a number repeat once,twice,thrice all the way until 7 times. This table is done with tests of several hundred thousands of spins.

edit: at 3x, the 3rd repeat is missing, I guess it should be around spin 37.

So I did one analysis using real spins I have. results were eerily similar. Though keep this in mind this is just but one set of spins. There are many ways and betting opportunity you can use with the table above, but I'll just give a feel of a few to let you guys brainstorm and many explore further possibilities. Though keep this in mind I've only analysed one set of spins, might not work for another. But seems promising.

Open the attachment below for my spins

Anyway looking at my attachment, we can roughly guess when a number is going to "appear". Looking at my attachment and comparing to the table above we can see that roughly the 1st x2 repeat will appear at 12th spin. But it has already happened in the 8th spin for our example, so no bet. The same as the other x2 repeats which appeared earlier then the norm and one x3 repeat at the 18th spin.

Our first betting opportunity arises before the 21st spin. We have 3 x2 repeater and one x3 repeater. According to the table 4 x2 repeater should appear at the 21th spin. so we bet all numbers that appeared once which happen to be 16 units and 16 numbers, we hit on the next spin and net a profit of 20 units.

Next since our first x3 repeater has appeared, we are going to "predict" when the 2nd x3 repeater is going to appear, according to the table at 32th spin. we have one x3 repeater, so we bet 1 unit on the 32th spin, it doesn't appear, we bet again 1 unit on the 33th spin. It appears we net a profit of 34 units.

Next is from x3 repeaters to x4. we bet on the 42th spin 2 units( since we have 2 x3 repeaters), it doesn't hit, we continue betting until the 48th spin and we net a profit of 22 units.

Continue doing so for the other repeaters until x7. In the case of my spins, all netted a profit.

I don't claim is HG, but seems like a better betting method then usual?

keel44

Welcome Back.  Nice to see you still haven't given up on this theory.  I would say after looking at your data, just play the numbers that hit 3 times as they appear until about spin 100.  I see some numbers got RED HOT.  Maybe a small progression at first, then flat bet when you have 4 numbers that qualify.


Nice chart.


KEEL

simon

"Next since our first x3 repeater has appeared, we are going to "predict" when the 2nd x3 repeater is going to appear, according to the table at 32th spin. we have one x3 repeater, so we bet 1 unit on the 32th spin, it doesn't appear, we bet again 1 unit on the 33th spin. It appears we net a profit of 34 units."

.................. wrong, you had eight other x2 numbers which had not become x3's besides the 15 , so you could not have picked just the 15 for a profit of 34 units, you would have been betting the 15 plus the other eight numbers before one of them (the 15) hit.

insidebet

Hello,

I tested this for 6 sessions of 100 spins each.

+281
-64
+161
+128
+163
-96

Quite good so far.  But 600 spins mean absolutely nothing.
I like it beacause it is flatbetting.  None of these nonsensical progressions.

Is it me or is it another way to play GUT?  (BTW, much easier to manage).

Insidebet

RedKing

"outcomes on the even chances tend to clump together"

. . . . searching for patterns in randomness isn't a great idea.

Fast Bucks

Hi

The average frequency table is accurate for the most part, except for the first 2x at spin 12, the average first
2x should be replaced with spin 9. 

insidebet


Fast Bucks

@Insidebet,
Hi
I ran thousands of cycles by computer to find the average first 2X.  Actually its exactly 8. 3 spins but i rounded it up to 9.
The cycles were computed by having the program start drawing numbers until a repeat happened, then clear the board and start again and repeat this process thousands of times.

insidebet

Thanks for the reply.   The question is the same old, same old.  Are RNG really the same as real Roulette #s ???
The answer to this will never be definite, me thinks.

Funny, though that the guy that posted this came to a different table.  Do his 3X, 4X and so on differ from what you know?  If it does, could you give us your complete results?   
As I mentionned before, I tested this method quite a bit manually, with positive results.  It really takes a while though, so I am waiting for a friend to code this and test it over a longer period.

Insider

Fast Bucks

Quote from: insidebet  link=topic=16576. msg117017#msg117017 date=1280780640
Thanks for the reply.    The question is the same old, same old.   Are RNG really the same as real Roulette #s ???
The answer to this will never be definite, me thinks.

As far as general number frequency statistics and behaviour is concerned my tests have shown no difference
between the two.  My programs can accept outside number input so its easy to test both.

QuoteFunny, though that the guy that posted this came to a different table.   Do his 3X, 4X and so on differ from what you know?  If it does, could you give us your complete results?

Now that you have asked the center points for the first 3x,4x and 5x would be shifted lower to 21,37 and 55 respectively.  Sadly i have not recomputed the entire table.  Originally i tested the 12 spin center for the first
2x because it did not look right and then i did a few more.  If i generated a brand new table the central points would most likely be shifted lower for everything.  Theres no point in doing that if you are happy with the current table and it is working for you.      


beretta28

Your table represents  "The Theory"!

Pratically there are big,very big deviations from this table and because of that it's useless.

Your 2x,3x have the same huge deviations(ecart) of a simple Black and Red and these deviations kill the player.

Trust on me. I studied this table for a long long period 20 years ago. . . Unluckily for all of us,it was a disaster!

NS

Quote from: beretta28 on August 21, 2010, 10:00:08 AM
Your 2x,3x have the same huge deviations(ecart) of a simple Black and Red and these deviations kill the player.

Exactly.

birdhands

Inside Bet,
  Did you give up on this?  I've run it for 3 60 spin sessions and I'm up $280.   I'll keep going with it.   What happened?

Sam

birdhands

-