+ Register

[Turner]

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]]

[Sputnik]

 
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 ...

[Turner]

sorry...tidied it up

[Turner]

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

[Sputnik]

 
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 ...

[Bally6354]

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.

[Turner]

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.

[Bally6354]

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.

[Turner]

Bally....i tried to find thay 3mill test but couldnt. I wanted to see if my x1.5 estimate was true

[Bally6354]

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

[Priyanka]

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

[Turner]

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

[Priyanka]

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]

[Chrisbis]

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............


(or have I just done that by default??) [smiley]aes/blush.png[/smiley]

[Priyanka]

[smiley]skype/rofl.gif[/smiley]