As I stated in esoito's thread, I am in the middle of revisiting the Law of the Third. I like to go back from time to time and see if I can look at things in a slightly different way from before using any new knowledge/understanding/insights that I have picked up.

The LOTT has always fascinated me after reading posters like 'Number 6' and 'Dyksexlic'. It is however a bit of a slippery customer and just when I thought I was getting somewhere, poof, the magic vanished. Hopefully that was just my inexperience.

So this thread is an invitation to anyone who wants to help try and crack this LOTT once and for all. At the end of the day, there is nothing to lose except a bit of free time and everything to gain (even if just adding a bit of new knowledge). So please join in and let's have some fun with it.

Here is something to get the ball rolling and give us something to think about.

[attachimg=1]

There are 22 spins in the picture above with 4 repeats. (so 18 originals) It's a bit like G.U.T. with the 'first crossing' 19 unhit vs 18 hit.

Now here is my thought/question. If the LOTT averages 24 originals in a 37 spin cycle and it has already produced 18 originals, why would I want to bet the 19 unhit. On average, only 6 more of those 19 are going to appear in the next 15 spins.(admittedly some will maybe come twice or more)......but it's something to think about/study.

Now just to move my early thoughts on a bit.

[attachimg=1]

The next number out was 15 which was one of the 19 unhit numbers. What I have done is to block out the first number after this result which was the 22 because I want to see what happens if I am constantly working with 18 hit vs 19 unhit numbers.

*what characteristics will form recording like this?

*could it be a way to isolate hot numbers?

These are the things I am studying at the moment.

i tested something similar: use oldest 18 numbers to bet against as EC - still 50/50. I think you constantly shifting previous numbers make no difference. The result of 1 or more spins following 19/18 is always different across different data sets, i.e random.

Hello Falkor,

I tend to agree that if I just adopted a single trigger approach, I would not get anything different than 50/50 like you suggest. However, by studying the flow of results, I am going to try and see if there are 'pockets' of time where different types of bet selections / progressions can help to turn things to my advantage. He who dares and all that....

I tried a lot of third law stuff before, but seem to be doing better playing number Cycles, Non-Random and combination play. I think this is the way forward out of random play - not intending to hijack your topic though. Good luck!

Just to add to the picture I uploaded earlier.....here is the next one after a further couple of spins which shows the first time one of the 18 hit numbers repeats.

[attachimg=1]

I always want to have 18 hit and 19 unhit numbers for the next spin.

A bit of testing is showing it to be streaky so far as this other example shows. I decided to run the 'Boxer' MM alongside it.

[attachimg=2]

QuoteThere are 22 spins in the picture above with 4 repeats. (so 18 originals) It's a bit like G.U.T. with the 'first crossing' 19 unhit vs 18 hit.

Now here is my thought/question. If the LOTT averages 24 originals in a 37 spin cycle and it has already produced 18 originals, why would I want to bet the 19 unhit. On average, only 6 more of those 19 are going to appear in the next 15 spins.(admittedly some will maybe come twice or more)......but it's something to think about/study.

Excellent observation Bally, by betting the 19 unhit you won't get the edge most of the times because in the final third usually are more repeats (from 18 group) rather than from the unhit 19 numbers group.
The principle of the 19 unhit group has to cross is flawed simply because it aims this to happen on a single specific spin.
Yes, eventually this crossing will happen BUT if you don't know WHEN exactly, you know nothing and have no advantage at all!
It surprises me when such flawed methods are getting so much publicity, if it hadn't so much acceptance from the majority, would be just another way to bet and I wouldn't even bother with it.
But it's disturbing me that GUT got so much publicity, even called holy grail and all these based on a fallacious principle!
People don't like when you are waking them up, so the best attitude is to leave them on their ignorance and they will reap what they sow... 

You call LOT slippery, I call it multifacet because many ways to form, thus a polymorphic source which never ceases to exist, only alters from time to time.
The longer  the interval from one observation to the next, the  greater this difference it might be.
By providing many fault interpretations you cannot conclude that the LOT is useless, but useless are the interpretations!
LOT is an easy beast to misunderstand, don't blame yourself, needs great amount of effort in order to conquer the principle/source.
Just focus to the "trunk" instead of the "brunches"...

Thank you for your posts Blue Angel.

Regarding the G.U.T. I think Winkel has only ever really scratched the surface and just laid out the basics. I don't really blame him. It's hard to communicate ideas/thoughts sometimes and Winkel's main language is not English.

I have done some more testing and I am still getting very streaky results. I tried the 'goose' this time just for fun and also added a count to see if I could 'read' things any better. If I am 100% honest however, I really think the beauty of the LOTT will be in identifying hot numbers to play for short periods as the cycles change. (call it a hunch)

cheers

[attachimg=1]

QuoteThank you for your posts Blue Angel.

Regarding the G.U.T. I think Winkel has only ever really scratched the surface and just laid out the basics. I don't really blame him. It's hard to communicate ideas/thoughts sometimes and Winkel's main language is not English.

I have done some more testing and I am still getting very streaky results. I tried the 'goose' this time just for fun and also added a count to see if I could 'read' things any better. If I am 100% honest however, I really think the beauty of the LOTT will be in identifying hot numbers to play for short periods as the cycles change. (call it a hunch)

cheers

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Winkel.
He might be a wonderful personality, but my objections are about GUT.

Some stats here for the LOTT.

Number of trials needed to get first number is: 1.00
Number of trials needed to get 2 different numbers is 2.00
Number of trials needed to get 3 different numbers is 3.00
Number of trials needed to get 4 different numbers is 4.00
Number of trials needed to get 5 different numbers is 5.00
Number of trials needed to get 6 different numbers is 6.00
Number of trials needed to get 7 different numbers is 8.00
Number of trials needed to get 8 different numbers is 9.00
Number of trials needed to get 9 different numbers is 10.00
Number of trials needed to get 10 different numbers is 11.00
Number of trials needed to get 11 different numbers is 13.00
Number of trials needed to get 12 different numbers is 14.00
Number of trials needed to get 13 different numbers is 16.00
Number of trials needed to get 14 different numbers is 17.00
Number of trials needed to get 15 different numbers is 19.00
Number of trials needed to get 16 different numbers is 21.00
Number of trials needed to get 17 different numbers is 22.00
Number of trials needed to get 18 different numbers is 24.00
Number of trials needed to get 19 different numbers is 26.00
Number of trials needed to get 20 different numbers is 28.00
Number of trials needed to get 21 different numbers is 30.00
Number of trials needed to get 22 different numbers is 33.00
Number of trials needed to get 23 different numbers is 35.00
Number of trials needed to get 24 different numbers is 38.00 <== This is the "law of the third"
Number of trials needed to get 25 different numbers is 41.00
Number of trials needed to get 26 different numbers is 44.00
Number of trials needed to get 27 different numbers is 47.00
Number of trials needed to get 28 different numbers is 51.00
Number of trials needed to get 29 different numbers is 55.00
Number of trials needed to get 30 different numbers is 60.00
Number of trials needed to get 31 different numbers is 65.00
Number of trials needed to get 32 different numbers is 71.00
Number of trials needed to get 33 different numbers is 78.00
Number of trials needed to get 34 different numbers is 88.00
Number of trials needed to get 35 different numbers is 100.00
Number of trials needed to get 36 different numbers is 118.00
Number of trials needed to get 37 different numbers is 155.00

Notice that although on average, the number of trials needed to get the "full set", is 155, we know that a number can sleep for 300 or more spins, but MOST of the time (68%) they will have all arrived after a similar number of spins to 155.

Bally6354,That is an amazing table.


I love the pointing out of the moment that the law of third occurs.


It just jumps off the page to want to go wild writing sims again.

Gizmo, what I particularly found interesting is that it takes on average 24 spins to get 18 numbers. I added a 'count' to my idea with the thinking that a low count to begin with (meaning no repeats) might bring a flurry of repeats. This would be then an ideal scenario for progressions like the 'mongoose' or the 'boxer'. In fact paying attention to the count at all times could guide as to when to use a suitable MM plan.

Just to let you guys know as well that I have started a board where anyone is welcome to view or participate. It's dedicated towards the LOTT where I will go more in-depth regarding my LOTT ideas. (The link is in the signature below)

cheers