I did a lot of testing last night....nearly blew my laptop up running 1000000 spins thro RXI settled for 1/2 million as it was burning my leg. All bet positions have a max they sleep for.
They aren't a surprise.
Max sleepsingle
no. 1 471
split 2 270
street 3 161
corner 4 111
line 6 71
Doz 12 36
e/c 18 22
5) 94?
7) 67?
8 58?
9) 52
10) 47?
11) 29?
The 5 to 9 with a ? are a guess from the observed above that.
Now....I set Rx to the predetermined figures and found that number of sleepers
Say...lines...I set to track 71, found 6 sleeping and increased it until it was 5 sleeping not 6.
I found 6 that were still sleeping at 95 spins....went to 5 at 96.
I am certain by projecting my test in theory to 5 million spins...or 10 million that a figure around 95 would show.
But You may say...well that's 20 years of spins, I can discount it.Well no, because i found one in 5 mins.
I also found 31 sleeps for 18 numbers.
A safe rule of thumb would be to times the 400K figures by 1.5.
You won't be far out....and I observed some of them with my own eyes.
Max sleep
singleno's 1 706
split 2 390
street 3 241
corner 4 166
line 6 106
Doz 12 54
e/c 18 33
And I did see a 4 sleeping when I was testing for streets ay 166!!...i did see an 18 sleep for 31 and a 6 sleep for 95
So i have actually seen some of these predictions.
Conclusion.
These maximum sleeps are showing all the time.You could be betting 6 numbers and not realize its about to sleep for 95
SO I set the tracker for 85 and soon enough a sleep of 6 showed.
I bet them on RX and one number showed in the next 7 spins, many times on different sets of numbers.
[Mod Note....edited so preventing eye strain!......much better, thank mate! [smiley]aes/thumb.png[/smiley]]
I like the topic about checking sleepers ,,, not just sure how to take advantage out of them ...
Lets say you have always one line sleeping with six numbers.Then when three lines show and you play them like even money position, then comes question, do you face twelve numbers against you or more.
You know one line will not show so you face two lines at most.
That is how i been thinking about sleepers.
Same as if you aim to only use does numbers that has a show ,,, then you don't face 37 degree of freedom as many numbers will sleep during first cycle, even for secound cycle ...
So if you had selection based upon that its same as playing no zero wheel.
My opinon ...
sorry...tidied it up
Sputnik
Well...one way is to track 87 spins and keep going until 6 are sleeping. then bet on them as agressively as you like....one will hit in 4 spins...
I got this to work wonderfully. It would also be a way of testing RNG online. Im going to do it.
This works many times on Permenanzen
Turner are you saying that you bet that the sleeping position will show ?
Or do you say that you play what is current and present as you know there is a sleeping position ?
I ask,,, as its in my opinion a big difference of methodology ...
Betting against sleepers is one way to try and keep the variance as low as possible to allow you to have a profitable session. The house edge won't kill you in a single session, where as the variance most certainly can. So betting against anything sleeping for a bit is naturally going to give you some kind of winning run if it continues to sleep.
The 64 dollar question is what is the optimal bet location for betting against sleepers?
My personal opinion is things like betting against a sleeping dozen or column (meaning you back the other two) is not a long term winner. A few losses can quickly dig a hole which may be hard to get out from. The best way I have found is to limit the bet location to as few numbers as possible.
But here is the crux of the problem really. How can you limit the bet and keep variance at bay. Solve that equation and you are making some progress. The good news for us is that loads of things can sleep for a long time. So it pays to be creative and flexible in looking for these sleeping locations.
Quite often I do something like this to see if something else emerges.
I was trying to find random limits.
I found by experiment that lines sleep as high as 95spins
I ran many tests until i saw a line which had slept for 85....and simply bet them in rhe knowledge it would hit in no more than 10..it did.
86...87...88 gets increasingly hard to find.
Its just a thought experiment really.
don't confuse this with "cofusing random" or "giving random something to think about" or other pearls from JL and pattern breakeresque systems.
Im just trying to see the sleeping limits.
I found your stats interesting Turner
Poit on the old rouletteforum.net did a 3 million spin test. I tried to copy + paste it here, but I can't paste anything in this forum for some reason.
Bally....i tried to find thay 3mill test but couldnt. I wanted to see if my x1.5 estimate was true
Hello Turner
Go to rouletteforum.net home page.
Click the link where it says 'old public forum'
Then the first section is 'Roulette forum / Free roulette systems.... click that.
Then it is a sticky! The 6th one down.
I am pretty certain Poit did a few of these and one was for more than 3 million spins and covered a lot of different stuff.
I will have a look myself later and let you know if I find anything else.
cheers
Very interesting Turner. As you know, I was reading Brett Morton recently around the same time when you read it . When he plays against the wheel his worst fear was "Today is going to be the world record breaking day of 22 straight reds". In fact he is playing for a sleeping EC when he plays against the wheel.
Few weeks back I was advised by a fellow member to see how playing black after 10 reds in a row or playing red after 10 blacks in a row was performing. I tested it and figured out that it was performing much better than playing against the last EC every spin. I tested for 10Mn spins and it was performing absolutely wonderful. The variance was under control.
Then I started looking deep. I figured out that if we just calculate the % wins on placed bets, it was no different. I stress placed bets, because if you play every spin over 10Mn spins you would have placed 10Mn bets. But if you adopt the second approach of placing a bet after 10 straight ECs, then you would have placed 100,000 bets or so. So if you compare apples to apples, its the same variance. Hope I have not confused anyone.
I think one more question that crossed my mind is what is the optimum that you should look for. I am thinking may be a line may not sleep 85 times for every session you play. Do you have any views Turner on how frequent this appeared on your tests? I mean out of lets say 10 sets of 85 spins, how many of them had a line sleeping for 85 spins.. In my tests I figured out that 5 numbers sleeping for 85 is very common but not 6.
I also did another test of randomly picking up a line, lets say line 1 and run it through a few sessions of permanenzen. You usually get a hit within the first 10 spins, but I might be biased. Worth a thought :)
- Yanks
Quote from: Priyanka on August 05, 2013, 11:24:07 AM
I think one more question that crossed my mind is what is the optimum that you should look for. I am thinking may be a line may not sleep 85 times for every session you play. Do you have any views Turner on how frequent this appeared on your tests? I mean out of lets say 10 sets of 85 spins, how many of them had a line sleeping for 85 spins.. In my tests I figured out that 5 numbers sleeping for 85 is very common but not 6.
There are 2.3 million 6's in 37 defined by (37!/6!)/31! = 2,324,784
Now its quite clear that ,say,line 1 comes out seemingly many time in our short viewing, that 12 million spins of data just isn't enough to show all 2.3M 6's hit max. Some will hit a lot...re:93..but its not the max.
perhaps there isn't a max
Lines show as a number sequence or 6 consecutive numbers that the casino decided to mark out.
Now the confusion to me isn't why I am seeing 6 numbers (which a line simply is) showing 105...higher than the 12 mill data, but why i am seeing them readily without looking extensivly.
if I blandly find 6 sleepers in say 95 spins, it then doesn't hit for 6 spins which is 101.
Im not lucky. Sleepers showing are the extremes of sleeps instantly showing all the time.
Yes Im obsessing...no Im not bloviating (to quote Sam) ....yes Im missing apostrophes Sam
But why do groups of sleepers show as a "yet to be discovered" maximum highs, all the time, in minutes of testing.
Perhaps we would need 100Million spins to see a line get to 101..
But I can see 103, 105 sleeps for 6 numbers in a matter of minuets
The answer to your question is that I have never seen a line sleep more than 40 in hours of testing
I've seen other 6's sleep 103 in minutes.
If RX could show 6's....it would need 2.3 million lines of data, and perhaps, in 12 million spins, the max may be 200
Quote from: Turner on August 06, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Now the confusion to me isn't why I am seeing 6 numbers (which a line simply is) showing 105...higher than the 12 mill data, but why i am seeing them readily without looking extensively.
I think the answer is because you are treating 6 numbers as line. They are not the same. Let me try explaining it with an example.
You flip a coin twice. The probability of Head sleeping is less than the probability of either head or tail sleeping over two spins.
Look into the detail. The possible outcomes of two flips are:
Head Tail
Tail Head
Tail Tail
Head Head
So if you want to find a predefined outcome (Head) not occurring for 2 flips, it is 1/4. The probability of an outcome (either head or tail) not occurring for 2 flips is 2/4.
This is essentially the difference between choosing a pre-defined set of 6 numbers (a line) sleeping over a set of spins and any 6 numbers sleeping over a set of spins. You will find that any 6 numbers can sleep over a larger set of spins than a pre-defined set of 6 numbers. [smiley]aes/devil.png[/smiley]
Quote
So if you want to find a predefined outcome (Head) not occurring for 2 flips, it is 1/4. The probability of an outcome (either head or tail) not occurring for 2 flips is 2/4.
There is a very well versed joke in here somewhere, but I am not going to be the one pointing it out............ :whistle:
(or have I just done that by default??) [smiley]aes/blush.png[/smiley]
[smiley]skype/rofl.gif[/smiley]
But a line is just one combination of 6 numbers that can exist in 37.
So 123456 is special and 123457 is completly different until I get to 7,8,9,10,11,12
Then its special again.?
Quote from: Turner on August 07, 2013, 06:55:40 AM
But a line is just one combination of 6 numbers that can exist in 37.
So 123456 is special and 123457 is completly different until I get to 7,8,9,10,11,12
Then its special again.?
Yes, line is one combination of 6 numbers that can exist in 37. Consider the example that you just gave. When you take 123456 as a line and you get sleepers 123457. In the analysis that Poit has provided over 12Mn spins, when 123457 appears as sleepers, even though they are 6 numbers will not be considered for analysis when he says a line sleeps because his boundary of 6 numbers is natural lines.
The difference is whether you are predefining this set of 6 or not. If you are predefining, it could either be a natural line or a combination of any set of 6 numbers (like 0, 1, 12, 23, 24, 35), they will have a lesser probability of sleeping over a set of spins than any 6 numbers. Defining the boundaries while tracking is the key differentiation. Relook at the Head, tail example that I gave. Either head or tail is an outcome. But the probabilities vary when you want head to sleep rather than either head or tail to sleep.
Hope I am able to convey what I am thinking. If am not, is there anyone who gets what am saying. Let me know if am blabbering as that might well be the case :)
Perhaps im not sure what im trying to say. But i know what im trying to do
Im trying to understand if random has limits and what they are.
Its better to test yourself than just believe a list some one else produced.
Hey Turner, hows this testing going?
By the way, I find the perfect explanation of what I was trying to explain you on why lines are different from any 6 numbers and why you are seeing max spins for lines sleeping is less than max spins for 6 numbers sleeping.
Try answering the following :
How many times have you seen 18 numbers sleeping for 15 spins. Perhaps every time you play.
How many times have you seen Red sleeping for 15 spins. Not as frequent.
Why? Both are a set of 18 numbers. There lies the answer
Chasing [smiley]aes/sleep.png[/smiley] [smiley]aes/sleep.png[/smiley]you should take all possible COMBINATIONS into account. It is basic probability. An example:In a class of 37 two may skive today. If 1 is one of them, he or she may skive together with one out 36 other. You could count the total number of possibilites by adding 36 to 35 and so on and finally reach a certain[smiley]aes/devil.png[/smiley] sum. Or a scientific calculator could give you the answer.
The many possible combinations might scare some of us from chasing [smiley]aes/sleep.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/sleep.png[/smiley].
Dane
On the other note....does one of the last 6 unique numbers often repeat because its the hottest group of 6 on the planet?
The more roulette tables there are in the casino the more probable it is that one of them will exhibit very long sleepers.
I look at the number boards next to the tables,and at some point I'll see one table with 10 or more reds or blacks etc
So freak events definitely do happen. That's why I always hedge bets. Never put all your eggs in one basket, as the saying goes.
Now if you see a table where certain colors, or numbers are trending then I'd back these for a set number of spins, with a positive progression (up as you win), such as parley bets.
Hi purple,
I must have missed you when you registered back in January, welcome to the forum.
I see that Lee Tutor's book is now available on Amazon, and much cheaper too. It's a pretty good book IMO, about the best I've seen for anyone serious about winning consistently, although the "math boyzzz" would dismiss much of it. :P
Quote from: Bayes on August 27, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
Hi purple,
I must have missed you when you registered back in January, welcome to the forum.
I see that Lee Tutor's book is now available on Amazon, and much cheaper too. It's a pretty good book IMO, about the best I've seen for anyone serious about winning consistently, although the "math boyzzz" would dismiss much of it. :P
Have you read the book ? if you say its good ,, then i buy a copy :-)
Yes Sputnik, I bought the book and it's hands down the most complete roulette book out there. i had bought the ebook a few years ago and used the systems in the casinos and ... have been making good money ever since. As it says there's no system to beat the casino mechanically but you can win 8 out of 10 sessions with proper play. In the book there's now more material on 99% maths systems, for progressions, and an excellent dealer signature system that has been a winner for me. It's really well written, with hundreds of diagrams, the guy obviously knows what he's talking about. My only complaint is that it wasn't published sooner!
I also have some basic visual ballistics skills that I use to double check on which numbers to choose.
As for the math boyz they can go play with their .. toyz...
*********As for the math boyz they can go play with their .. toyz...******* unique quote by [urple.
HIGH 5 -^^^^^
Nathan Detroit
Quote from: purple on August 27, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
it's hands down the most complete roulette book out there.
I'd have to agree with that. There's a lot of very useful info, and hardly any fluff or padding which you tend to get in other roulette books. The chapter on MM alone is worth the price. I've had the pdf version for several years but I'm tempted to get the hard copy, especially if there's new material in it. You can read the contents and first few pages at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1482362325/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1QP7CBGGCVZDKFPY3HY6&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846).
welcome to Turners book club.
Who cares about sleeping numbers anyhow!
I downloaded the said book btw...If I learn 2 things, its worth £6.
fairly big book too....300 real pages, about 6000 mini pages on the kindle
its good to get a different opinion than this shower in here lol.
In fact...Ill come back when I've read it.
(like im going to be missed lol)
Quote from: Turner on August 27, 2013, 08:33:47 PM
Who cares about sleeping numbers anyhow!
Sorry Turner, a bit off-topic!
But there is some quite good stuff on sleeping numbers in the book. :D
Quote from: Bayes on August 27, 2013, 08:47:51 PM
Sorry Turner, a bit off-topic!
But there is some quite good stuff on sleeping numbers in the book. :D
Bayes....Im joking Sir....i got a good read for the bath out of the topic if nowt else.