Interesting point from the Wiz site

[Kelly]

Snow tried to tell you years ago that chasing hot numbers instead of sleepers in any case would be a better choice. THE ONLY REASON being that you might be betting on a positive bias. Where chasing sleepers as a worst case scenario would cost you way more than the house edge because they were donators to a positive bias.  You can`t have a positive bias, without a negative bias somewhere else.  

The difference between you and snows method being, that snow would be betting the true bias and you would be tricked to also bet the small fluctations away from the bias and fall on your ass when the fluctation retraces. Overall you would still be better off than the house edge because you would be tricked back to the true bias sooner or later.

Spotting  the true bias is still number one because you can break up if the bias parameters changes (number ring rotation, cleaning etc.)

PS: About the picking number thing: Do it which ever way you want as long as you for use some sort of methology that rules out selecting specific days and leaving others out.  Pick some numbers from the internet, then make 1 session per day. Or make it as one long string of sessions without breaking it up for days (like if you were camping in the casino) or use evere second day or every third day etc. 

As long as it is not 250 spins from wisconsin and then 500 from wiesbaden and then 230 from gala in london. Leaves too much room for fiddeling with the numbers.

[Mr J]

For a minute, forget the bias factor (please!)

In my above example, lets say the wheel was 99.9999% accurate. Do you STILL not agree with me? Dont answer, I know your answer is 'no', thats fine.

Ken

[Kelly]

You can`t leave the bias factor out if you wanna play on the same wheel as snow. If it was 99.999999% perfect you would be playing hot numbers, snow wouldnt.

[Mr J]

You can`t leave the bias factor out if you wanna play on the same wheel as snow. If it was 99.999999% perfect you would be playing hot numbers, snow wouldnt.

Ok, hot numbers it is. Only myself, Snowman not involved. The wheel is 99.9999% accurate. Do you agree? >>


The first, past numbers mean something. I'll track 200 spins. I'll choose 3 numbers for YOU and 3 numbers for me. For myself, I'll take the 3 most recent numbers that have three hits on it (hot).

For you, I choose 3 numbers with the fewest hits in the last 200 spins (very cold). We'll flat bet for the next 20 spins, my numbers against your numbers. We'll do this experiment not once but over 100 different sessions/trials.

[Mr J]

Changing the subject a bit...I dont know why some think The Wizard and JP are some form of God?  Cracks me up.

Ken

[buffalowizard]

I thought that there are very few bias wheels anymore, so if a number (or sector) is repeating and getting hot, does it necessarily mean that that wheel is bias at all?

Isn't it just that some areas go through hot spells, and the trick is to hang onto its coattails for a while?

[Mr J]

I thought that there are very few bias wheels anymore, so if a number (or sector) is repeating and getting hot, does it necessarily mean that that wheel is bias at all?

Isn't it just that some areas go through hot spells, and the trick is to hang onto its coattails for a while?

FU***N BINGO, thank you!! You hit it on the head. But if a 'method' guy were to bet like you described, I would be the sucker for doing so BECAUSE those are PAST results.

Ken

[Nathan Detroit]

Npthing happens  just out of   nowhere.. One  must also  consider the interaction  of croupier  and wheel.

My prefernce are   B & M casinos with live  dealers at the roulette table.

" SOME LIKE IT HOT" .


Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

[Kelly]

You can call it a sucker bet if you like,  it has the same probability as a sleeping section and on a perfect wheel you would come out no worse or better than on the sleeping sectors.  The truth in the pudding is in the reason for betting there. Your reason for betting there would be that it would stay hot or that the sleepers will wake up.  On a perfect wheel, you end up with the same result. 

On a biased wheel you will end up with more hits. Tracking past numbers is just to confirm a bias that you visually already know about.  Playing "biased" numbers on a wheel where its impossible to detect any visual bias is in my opinion just as much a sucker bet as betting on a "hot" sector.

But thats not how its done ayway.

[I have cookies]

Well i just have to say if i have to make some bets to look occupied playing when tracking i find it being a great option to make some dummy bets and play hot numbers.
I also find the previous five as Snow mention so many times just work as clock work - even if i add twist to it.

Sure there is more potentials hitting some slight bias numbers that way then play sleepers.
And with does low value you recoup very fast when you start to play for real.

But i assume that is a different topic as there would never exist a reason for Mr J to play hide and seek at the table.
One other thing that strike me when i read about all does RC and many among the AP community actually starring into the wheel make me just wondering how they last standing at the tables.
The first thing Laurance tough me is just find a good way to glance at the wheel three times - saying that i should just say i don't use hes method do.

[Mr J]

Ok Kelly, can you meet me halfway? Lets say I am betting on numbers (a section) that is HOT but the reason its HOT is because of a slight bias. Lets say I do NOT know its a bias (nor do I care), is it acceptable to your holiness that I am betting on them?

Ken

[Kelly]

Which part is unclear ?

Playing "biased" numbers on a wheel where its impossible to detect any visual bias is in my opinion just as much a sucker bet as betting on a "hot" sector

[Mr J]

Hmmm, I dont know a better way to ask my question.

Ken

[Mike]

Ok Kelly, can you meet me halfway? Lets say I am betting on numbers (a section) that is HOT but the reason its HOT is because of a slight bias. Lets say I do NOT know its a bias (nor do I care), is it acceptable to your holiness that I am betting on them?

Ken

No it's not acceptable, because if you don't know that there's a bias why are you betting on them? Just because they're 'hot' doesn't mean there is a bias, because numbers can run hot anyway due to random fluctuations. That's why I say you need to FIRST identify the bias VISUALLY, then you know that the numbers are hot because of the bias.

[I have cookies]

No it's not acceptable, because if you don't know that there's a bias why are you betting on them? Just because they're 'hot' doesn't mean there is a bias, because numbers can run hot anyway due to random fluctuations. That's why I say you need to FIRST identify the bias VISUALLY, then you know that the numbers are hot because of the bias.

That's why I say you need to FIRST identify the bias VISUALLY, then you know that the numbers are hot because of the bias.

If i understand you correct with your statement so do you refer to some kind of visual defect - is that correct?
If so then i would not agree as there exist one other method to verify to certain degree if you have a bias that is not due to random fluctuation with out any need to make a visual spotting of some kind of defect.
Its just take more time and effort and what you refer to 

[I have cookies]

-