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

It will not happen in your life-time!

Started by Kon-Fu-Sed, January 25, 2009, 12:05:24 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kon-Fu-Sed

@ Adriatik,

Quote

1 M x 100 years x 12h of spins per day. Can you calculate now how many repetition of one number can we expect ?

This is a joke, right?
I hope the answer is important to you.

This is how I calculate the number of spins needed for n un-specified repeats.

The general formula I used to calculate the repeat-table is:
(1 / p)^n - 1

(1 / p)
Your probability to hit one number is 1/37.
In decimal it's 0.0270270270270...
Divide 1 by 0.0270270270270 = 37
(It's 37 only for single numbers - this is a general formula)

^n
Multiply the value inside the paranthesis by itself n times.
Suppose you want the answer for 5 repeats.
The result within the paranthesis is 37 so you calculate 37 x 37 x 37 x 37 x 37.

- 1
Finally you subtract 1 from the result.

So. All you have to do is to do like that, with different values for "n".
You will then find an amount of needed spins that is as close below your amount of spins as possible.
Or equal to it.
The current value of "n" is your answer.



@ LS,

Why don't you prove yourself RIGHT?
It's simple and the only thing that is needed is pen and paper and roulette-results.

Mr Chips tried to do it that way, I believe.
If your theory is sound and your tests show conclusively what your theroy says, and you start making consistant profit, someone will come along and program it for you.
Rest assured.

Have you shown your theory yet?
In the "Brainstorming" section? In the "Coding Zone"?
Maybe in the "Bet Selection" section?
(I don't know as I rarely go there... Maybe you can provide a link?)


Furthermore I don't get this "I claim this and YOU prove me wrong" thing.

I claim certain things and I show or prove what I say.
That's the custom thing to do when making claims.
Why wouldn't YOU do that?


In this case you claim that I am wrong and you want[highlight] ME [/highlight]to prove it??

C'mon.


Best,
KFS

lucky_strike

QuoteFurthermore I don't get this "I claim this and YOU prove me wrong" thing.

Okay KFS that was a bad statment i agree and i apoliges for that.

Well there is one that will code it for me so i will contact him again.
The first time he get it wrong and made the code for it.
I will try again and i think my bad english is a part of it.
If we get it done i post the results.

I am humbel so i will use this word next time "help and tester needed".

Cheers LS

Kon-Fu-Sed

:)

I'm happy for you that you found someone to code it.
Good luck!

Sorry for bursting out on you.
But it wasn't the first time I've read that "you prove me wrong" thing.
Not even on this msg-board.

Cheers :D
KFS

Adriatik

KFC,

if I calculated it right in all tables in the world in 100 years we can expect one nuber to repeat in row little bit more than 7 times. I just wanted to know that so I can compare it !

I am not near the expert, and i dont want to pretend to be smarter than I am, but I wached some movies about Anstein theory of relativity and paralel universe, it says something like this: everyting is possibile, even a roulette wheel who trowes only number 7 spin after spin after spin .......  and that is exactly what is happening in one paralel universe ! I think i will watch that movies again  ;)

Kon-Fu-Sed

SEVEN times!
;D LOL

No wonder we haven't seen the 0 repeat 1000 times.
Yet.

/KFS

Marven


Rudy

Quote from: Kon-Fu-Sed on January 25, 2009, 12:05:24 PM

But now... Prepare!


How many bets do we REALLY HAVE TO WAIT for that "never in a life-time" event?


I supposed betting on HIGH (on a single-zero wheel) and counted how many results I saw until a sequence of 21 losses appeared.
To find 21 un-specified 18/37 losses is - as said above - a 1 / 1,197,872 chance. Mathematically.
That means I SHOULD have to wait, in average, something like 2.3 million trials before a 21-sequence of HIGH losses would appear.
Mathematically.

Well, I counted until I had found 50,000 such losses.

(I was aming at 1 million but I realised that only finding 10,000 was more than 6 hours computer time... 50,000 losing sequences meant a total of 113,279,546,087 trials ;D)

BTW!
50,000 sequences giving a total of 113,279,546,087 trials is an average of 2,265,590 trials/sequence.
For how long did I say, above, should I mathematically have to wait for 21 High losses?
;)

The results:

Waiting trials before the "never in your life-time" event starts
(Counting spins between sequences of 21 consecutive losses on the "High" bet)

Wait Interval   Sequence of
From - To       21-losses
   1 <   1K       27  <== Shortest = 135 spins!
  1K <   2K       29
  2K <   3K       12
  3K <   4K       18
  4K <   5K       15
  5K <   6K       19
  6K <   7K       16
  7K <   8K       16
  8K <   9K       25
  9K <  10K       15
10K <  20K      210
20K <  30K      201
30K <  40K      208
40K <  50K      225
50K <  60K      216
60K <  70K      203
70K <  80K      185
80K <  90K      179
90K < 100K      203
100K < 200K    1,972
200K < 300K    1,909
300K < 400K    1,802
400K < 500K    1,754
500K < 600K    1,743
600K < 700K    1,620
700K < 800K    1,616
800K < 900K    1,523
900K <   1M    1,545
  1M <   2M   11,579
  2M <   3M    7,418
  3M <   4M    4,809
  4M <   5M    3,052
  5M <   6M    2,028
  6M <   7M    1,488
  7M <   8M      926
  8M <   9M      514
  9M <  10M      318
10M - ....      459


So much for "It happens only once in a million spins and you will never place one million bets in your life-time!"
It CAN happen after 135 spins!


I hope you can see now, that a very small probability of something to happen, doesn't prevent it from happening NOW.

And many times it does.


A phenomenal piece of work Kon Fu Sed, but I can't help feeling you've missed a trick


You have 50,000 series of varying lengths, all of which have ended with 21 EC losses.

It's a shame you didn't go on to show how many of these 50,000 had a 22nd loss, how many of those had a 23rd and so on.

This would have been a superb way to disprove the Gambler's Fallacy.

At the very least it would have forced its proponents to say "Wait until you have 30 losses before betting"    ;)

Regards,

Rudy

Rudy

-