RNG: Force The Zero Strategy... What are your thoughts?

[esoito]

We need 'collective wisdom' for this one, folks, especially from regular RNG players.

Is the Foundation Assumption correct?

How valid is this strategy?

Has it worked for you? [Some details would be good]

Seems so 'easy' (ha!) So what's the catch??  [There must be one...surely...]



Here are the summarised details:

FOUNDATION ASSUMPTION
The random programme distributes the numbers and is only random within its probability quota.
 
Each RNG has number allocated occurrence probability. This means that every number is given a 1/37 chance 
of being drawn (0 & 18 Red 18 Black). 

Unlike real table roulette in a casino where a number is never guaranteed to be drawn, computer 
generated roulette has to provide a balance of numbers ensuring over a large total of spins each number
would have been drawn a similar amount of times, within a few percent.

This few percent is called the 'realistic waiver' which is supposed to add realism to computer generated roulette. 
 
It ensures a fair number allocation and obviously if you're chasing a set number you know it will eventually come in.

However it may not come in for 70 - 80 spins [or more, of course] but then you will find it may come in  2-3 times within 10 spins.

 
The Basic Strategy Of  Force The Zero
This system supposeedly exploits the above assumption of  number allocations.

Place equal bets on Red and Black every spin. You will never lose any money, except for when 0 is drawn.

By betting Red and Black you will keep winning on colour bets (even though you break even because 
you have bet on both Red and Black), but the computer registers a winning  colour bet every time.

Then the Green 0 starts to be drawn a lot more to combat the constant wins on Red and Black.

Therefore bets on Green 0, Red and Black with a bet placement structure provide the basis of Force The Zero.

[Shorty]

It's a good concept in my opinion. But who is to say that cheating RNGs (assuming there are cheating RNGs) throw out zeros to drain the players BR.

I thought most people lost because of ECs, dozens, columns, streets etc sleeping for extended periods of time?

I guess you could test it out but you would have to risk real money to do so, and more often than not people describe there losses when they increase their unit size, or go big on the progression...

[winkel]

Hi Esoito,

unfortunately some of your conclusions are wrong.

All RNG are watched to give a randomness.
If they would check every 37-spin-trot and act like you describe, there could be such an advantage as you describe. But it isn´t so.

The statistics (as I know from one RNG-Casino) are "monthly" checked and this is the strategy of "large number"
If there would be a deviation bigger than the normal and accepted deviation, than there would be a check of the RNG.

So we can conclud, that through a range of a month everything can happen and there will be a standard-deviation after a large number of spins. But there won´t be a difference to a statistic of table-spins of a BM-Casino.

br
winkel

[xman1970]

I tried this on a bookies RNG machines some years.....

Won about 3 days on the bounce swapping from machine to machine.....

Then one day the IT guy came in to fix one of the machines.....

& yes that was the end of that.....

[TwoCatSam]

Esoito

I bankrolled $300 and tried this method.  I can tell you I lost the money.  I played as the guy suggested and I only got zeros when I was betting red and black together.  Oh, I got a few wins, but very few.  They were so few I lost the $300.  If memory serves me right, I was betting $1 per color and $1 for the zero when it was "due".  May have been $5 on each; I just can't be sure.

I charted this thing and usually a zero came every 17 spins when betting red and black.  So I would wait for sixteen spins and then switch to zero.  You guessed it.  No zero for ages!  Switch back to red and black and there's the zero.  It would go back to the 17 and then zero.

I think I've donated about all I ever will to the CNGs.  I think they make their money because dumb-dumbs like me want to prove they are crooked! 

Sam

[esoito]

Thanks for these replies.

They all serve to confirm that RNG is a dry well. [After all, RNG isn't roulette, is it?]

@Winkel:  Just to correct you -- they are not MY conclusions!!  I simply summarised a strategy I found on the net and asked for others' opinions. (My private conclusion is to stay away from RNG altogether.)

@Shorty:  Yes, the progressions would be the killer if the zero came in sooner rather than later, which, of course, is likely to happen once the software detects the betting pattern.

@Sam:  Ouch...you've provided 300 excellent reasons for leaving alone RNG in general and this strategy in particular! 

[esoito]

-