Even though roulette is a perfect independent results' game, there are some interesting long term features that could be easily tested by everyone.
The strategy  was conducted over 1.500.000 real spins (single zero).

I mean some events are more likely than others. Unfortunately zero tax and some other practical features will lower a lot the value of such aknowledge.

The trigger we are looking for is really simple: we take note of the last number produced then we bet all the 3 EC belonging to this number. And this procedure is made per every last number sorted out.

For example number 33 sorted out, next spin we want to bet black, odd and high.

Obviously such betting will get 4 different outcomes (zero ignored):

- winning all 3 EC (sorting of 29,31,33,35): +3

- winning just one unit (sorting of 11,13,15,17,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28): +1

- losing just one unit (sorting of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,32,34,36): -1

- losing all 3 EC (sorting of 12,14,16,18): -3

Well, in the long run the number of spots winning all 3 bets are greater than the number of spots losing all 3 bets and it will increase the more the hands are played.

Of course to try getting the best of it from this finding needs also to take into account the spots where we'll either win or lose 1 unit.

Despite of what many may think, there are no better numbers or worse numbers to spot as triggers.

True, red-odd-low numbers or black-even-high numbers should have the theorical best probability to match the same EC on the next spin but this wasn't the case, at least on our quite long sample.

In a word and transferring the plan on the statistical field, we'll expect to have more single total different EC outcomes than streaks of different EC outcomes, more double different EC outcomes than 2+ streaks of different EC outcomes and so on. And the reverse is also true regarding the same EC situations (more streaks than single, more 2+ than doubles, etc).

The variance and the weight of zero could be quite high, yet the final result will be sure.

as.   

 

   














 

What is so special about this finding? You just bet 3 fixed ECs constantly and simulate 3-4 samples of the same length i.e. 1,500,000. You will almost find the similar results without betting all the three ECs of the last number.

Is this finding giving you any edge?
Can you win flat bet this way?
Can this way of picking bets get you immune from bad stretches of losses?

I think all the answers will go in negative, being honest.
     Betselection doesn't make the difference, your MM strategy does.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 19, 2016, 01:40:29 AM
What is so special about this finding? You just bet 3 fixed ECs constantly and simulate 3-4 samples of the same length i.e. 1,500,000. You will almost find the similar results without betting all the three ECs of the last number.

Is this finding giving you any edge?
Can you win flat bet this way?
Can this way of picking bets get you immune from bad stretches of losses?

I think all the answers will go in negative, being honest.
     Betselection doesn't make the difference, your MM strategy does.

Of course the edge will be so small that cannot overcome the zero tax unless we utilize a super multilayered slow progression.

Yep, differently to baccarat I can't win by flat betting here as I can't restrict the variance.

Mmmhhh, if it's so easy to find opposite events giving an infinite one-shifted gap at roulette be free to give me other examples capable to surpass a 1.500.000 test.

It takes a couple or so of NY minutes to find out if they would exist.

But I already know the answer. Still I'm very glad to be wrong. ;-)

as. 

   

This may be a little off topic but I think it is about time aware players realised what a treasure is hidden within roulette.

One of the keys to beat the game is to view outcomes in short cycles, and this I have stated for several years, after I was advised by Arvis - a European professional player.

I use cluster analysis in 3-7 spin outcome sequences, and various other modes, some generic, some adapted, and some provided for me by Mentors.

Also I use flat staking, and accelerate earnings by stepping in winning phases, such as parlay.

I use stop loss, triggers and even recovery techniques.

Recent research revealed by several other professional quality players who have worked for over 10 years behind the scenes demonstrates what can be and is being done. It depends where you search and to whom you speak. Look freshly at the opportunities that surround you.

Ignore the naysayers and reach out to those that have seen what is below the surface.

Here is a little example taken from live play in Dublin ( table 2) a few minutes ago.

13
9
22
17
29
4
3   betting opportunity to target 9 numbers
11 hit  +27
12
23
18 betting opportunity to target 9 numbers
14 hit +27
26 hit
3   hit
15 hit
0   hit
13 hit   the last 5 spins were all hits as they are part of one side of the wheel all +18, and share the A street characteristic ( plus Zero).

Overall + 144 units

These treasures are available in roulette, especially so.

Regarding card games, I know nothing.

XXVV, thanks for your interesting contribute here.

I'm working to find out how you select the bets.

as

Thank you AS i like this methodology very much.

Cheers

Quote from: Sputnik on May 19, 2016, 04:34:02 PM
Thank you AS i like this methodology very much.

Cheers

Thank You!

You already know that I'm strongly convinced that some serious roulette players have a sort of advantage over other gamblers.
To be honest I continue to think that roulette is an unbeatable game, at least under normal circumstances.
But the efforts made by certain roulette researchers are, imo, far more interesting than what I've read so far about other games (bj excluded, of course).

Why?

Because serious roulette players will start their observations having solid mathematical and statistical basis: they know very well how the events will be placed, the limits when the deviations most likely will be included and so on.

More importantly, a strict bunch of roulette players focus their study about the only possible tool one could get to beat EV- games: the concentration/dllution effect of the events, a mere statistical issue.

And roulette, a multiple simultaneous result machine, might offer plenty of opportunities to grasp some hints about the above effect.

So, yes, roulette is an unbeatable game, yet I'm waiting to hear from mathematicians why after a X-Y-Z EC event, the most likely result taken from a class of two opposite events being X-Y-Z (the same result) and the perfect opposite Z-X-Y will be invariably shifted toward the former.

Ok, zero tax will erase the possible validity of such finding, not mentioning the fact that after a given 3 EC event the most likely result overall considered will be a -1 or +1 result.

Why the hell in a single zero wheel and itlr a sequence like 26-3-26-3 will be less likely than 13-13-11-13? 

as.