+ Register

[Robeenhuut]

No to be precise as you will find out when Victor finishes the tracker/tester for 7 ON 1. RANDOM struggles to produce more than 3 or 4 gaps like this 1--23--32--27--3. Before it MUST then produce a gap like this 1--23--32--27--30--3 or more. It could on occasion total more than 30 spins because of repeaters and shorter gaps of 2 or three. But seven 4 gaps in a row playing H,A,R. Will be rare.

This is a by product of playing the ZONE for many years. I noticed that random simply cannot stay under 5 or more for too long. And played H.A.R its scarey. I might go years without loss.

For 7 ON 1 to lose random at the PRECISE time I decide to play a game. Has to show me seven 4 gaps without producing a 5 gap or more. And using H.A.R that's very, very, very hard to lose.

There is already a tester for dozens made by Stef on other forum. It shows how often 4 gaps occur within randomly generated 500 spins. You can choose a single zero and no zero options. You just press F9. 7 gaps are rare but 3 gaps don't happen that often too. Its the line of thinking that its easier to win 3 step Marty after you saw 15 Reds in a row than right from the beginning. Yesterday for the first time i saw more than 20 pattern of EC's. Chops of R/B for 21 times in a row on BVNZ. And i won 10E on a first bet  Just a unintelligent luck. 

[spike]

Just a unintelligent luck.

Just the nature of random outcomes.

[Bayes]

The use of the term trigger defeats the explanation of what
random is. It traps you into thinking its something it isn't.
To deal with random effectively, you need to understand
it as well as possible, and that means not trying to make it
do things that aren't possible.

Spike, you seem to be undermining your own case here whether you realize it or not. You deny that random has limits, but winning consistently flat betting by looking at past spins necessarily entails that it does. If it was all chaos and no order, then you wouldn't be able to understand random at all and "not trying to make it do things that aren't possible" would be meaningless, because ANYTHING would be possible.