+ Register

[Sputnik]

 
Fist method RWD

Roy Ward Dickson said a playable hot number is...

a. One that has not come up for at least thirty consecutive spins. ie. 30 spins or more never less.

b. One that after such an "establishing period of absence" finally came up.

c. And which did so twice more during the next 19 spins or less, subject to the special exceptions below.

That is three shows in 20 spins or less after an absence of 30 spins or more.

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
A number is NOT playable if it comes up three times in a row.
A number is NOT playable if the DIFFERENCE in the 'gap' between the first-and-second appearance and the 'gap' between the second-and-third appearances consists of more than six.

Say the qualifying numbers' initial two shows were on the first and seventh spins, that is a 'gap' of 6 and the third qualifying show came up on the 19th spin, that is a 'gap' of 12 spins, then the DIFFERENCE in the 'gaps' of 6 & 12 = 6. The number is playable!

Again, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and third spins, that is a 'gap' of 2 and the third show is on the twelveth spin, that is a 'gap' of 9, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of 2 & 9 = 7. The number is unplayable!

Another example, suppose the initial two shows are on the first and tenth spins, that is a 'gap' of 9 and the third show is on the twentieth spin, that is a 'gap' of 10, so the DIFFERENCE in the'gaps' of 9 & 10 = 1. Playable!

BETTING STRATEGY.
Back a playable qualifying number for UP TO 9 spins NOT counting spins where zero shows.
Of course zero itself can qualify to be playable.
Bet one unit on the first to the sixth playable spin and two units on the seventh to the ninth playable spin.
If the string of nine bets all fail to achieve a win stop betting that number immediately.
Stop backing that number immediately a bet wins, that is the hot number shows for the fourth time.
As soon as one such playable hot number bet has won stop that playing session at that wheel, even if it was your first bet. No more bets that day at that wheel.
Should three successive playable strings each of nine bets all lose stop that playing session at that wheel.
If you have lost two strings of nine bets and are playing a third when a second number qualifies as playable DON'T commence betting on it. Either you win your currently active string and walk or you walk away after losing three consecutive strings of nine anyway.

Second method median and skips ...

Skip Streak System by Apache:

First I want tell I build this system using Ion Saliu concepts :
Skip, Streak, and Median Value.

Example :

Roulette Number: 6
Hits -> 24 times
Skips -> 51 43 104 1 2 29 37 77 79 15 130 15 12 7 11 131 11 129 8 16 20 14 21 12

* Sorted Skips: 1 2 7 8 11 11 12 12 14 15 15 16 20 21 29 37 43 51 77 79 104 129 130 131

* Median Skip: 16

So number 6 hit 24 times.
The first row - called Skips - show ( to the right to left) the skips of number 6. Number 6 show. After 12 spins, show again, after 21 spins show again, after 14 spins number 6 show again etc. The last three skips of number 6 are 104, 43, 51.


The second row - called - Sorted Skips show all the skips for a particular number in ascending order.

The three row called - Median Skip - show the median value of the sorted skips. The median is the middle value of a string of numbers. In this example the median value of skips is 16.
It should not be confused with the average.
So the Median Value is the middle value in a string of values.

Therefore 50% of the values are within the median or less, and 50% are within the median or more. In my example of number 6, the skip median is 16. That mean that 50% of the time number 6 hits within a skip of 16 or less.

Now if in the string of skips of number 6 I mark :

with sign (+) I mark if the skip is greater than median value of skips
with sign (-) I mark if the skip is small than median value of skips
with sign (=) I mark if the skip is equal with median value of skips

I obtain this :

Code:

51  43  104  1  2  29  37  77  79  15  130  15  12  7  11  131  11  129  8  16  20  14  21  12

+   +    +  -  -   +   +   +   +   -    +   -   -  -   -    +   -    -  -   =   -   -   -   -



1. THE STRATEGY :

We bet on the numbers which have a 3 consecutive streak of skips greater than the median value of skips. ( That mean three consecutive + )

In our example number 6 is qualified because the last three skips ( consecutive ) are 104, 43, 51. We have + + + ( three consecutive value of skips, greater than median value of skips. 16

(104 > 16) (43 > 16) (51 > 16)

St0rm0r, is possible to code this system with this options : ?


1.Bet on numbers with encounter 3 consecutive signs +
2.Bet on numbers with encounter 4 consecutive signs + (tight bettors)
3.Bet on numbers until hit.
4.Bet on numbers for 37 spins
5.Bet on numbers for a number of spins equal with the median value of skips. ( In this example we bet number 6 for 16 spins)

Money managament : Flat bet.

Thank you in advance.


P.S. I use this strategy with success in Bookmakers Lottery. (The Irish, German, Spanish,49s lotteryes where I can bet one number )

[Sputnik]

 
Is there more and other methods playing only one number around ?
Then feel free to mention does or add a link !!!

Many Thanks

[Bally6354]

Hello Sputnik,

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I will go through my files and see if I can find any interesting ones.

I have experimented a lot with my own single number ideas and I think the downfall of them all (including RWD) is that you are waiting too many spins for a 'fixed' number to appear. Even 9 is too many IMO.

Possibility is not static and is constantly changing. So I think the numbers to bet on must be constantly changing as well otherwise you are losing momentum. This seems to be a constant flaw in single number prediction techniques.

[XXVV]

@Bally


You are so right.


Roulette being amongst cycle within cycle within cycle is also a short cycle game especially and the terms for a single number bet need to be responsive also to the context of the current game flow. If the context is clustering with lots of numbers and the outcomes are the same old suspects then play is 'tight' as in a spring analogy - wound up . In such case short time to appear.


At other times, loose play then waiting time and spin outcome durations to target can be much longer.


Contrast might be from 12 in one case to 37 in the other.


It seems more often than not, occurrences of the same number are usually close rather than further apart; a sort of magnetic link.
XXVV

[TwoCatSam]

All

I have done many hours of study on this system.  Please see my posts here http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=6459.msg119399#msg119399 if you please.  I don't want to have to re-create the whole shebang over here.

I strongly suspect--thought I can't prove it--we are doing something wrong.  His method defies logic, in my opinion.  There are charts and some well-thought-out writings on the system.

Please have a look and post there or here.

Thanks.  I really need help on this puppy!!

Sam

[Mr J]

"You're getting closer to biased wheel play" >>> Slowly, slowly...... (am I stupid or something?)

Come on, out with it. Get it off your chest, "my friend".

Ken

[Turner]

You're getting closer to biased wheel play.  Throw in a little chi square testing in front or your hot number tracking and it will get more interesting.

Roulette Xtreme warns:


WARNING: Chi Square test is statistically insignificant and unreliable to determine bias if only small amounts of data (let's say only three cycles) are at hand, because despite to common belief deviations from expected  outcomes on a smaller amount of trials are mostly due to coincidence, not bias.


Just bigger than that....say 5 cycles is still not out of the woods.


How many cycles before you can trust a chi square test?

[Xander]

WARNING: Chi Square test is statistically insignificant and unreliable to determine bias if only small amounts of data (let's say only three cycles) are at hand, because despite to common belief deviations from expected  outcomes on a smaller amount of trials are mostly due to coincidence, not bias.


Just bigger than that....say 5 cycles is still not out of the woods.


How many cycles before you can trust a chi square test? -Turner

You can't use it on little samples.  Starting at around 200 to 250 spins you can look at the chance of randomness to see how many test samples you'd need to encounter a similar test result.  Even then, a high chi square will likely be the result of a random spike on most wheels.  However, any additional amount of information that you can get about the wheel is useful.

You guys need a way to identify when the wheel is running in a cycle where the numbers could possibly be clumping or running hot for a reason.

Ideally, you need to witness the dealer's actions as well.  There's a lot of information that can be taken into account.  Probably far more than most people would be willing to collect.

-Xander

[XXVV]

Xander raises some interesting points here.


Why does everything have to have an 'outward reason' such as wheel bias, dealer signature or humidity levels or type of wheel, bucket or scalloped, or size of ball or weight of ball. These may be a part of the story or they may be symptoms or characteristics of something that goes deeper. The analogy of medicine is intended and increasingly 'holistic' medicine is seen as a truer and more helpful approach to understanding.

Why cannot variations be from 'within', 'intrinsic' ,and actually from the essence of nature, ie 'natural rhythms' as part of the expression of randomness. The number just 'is'.

Also I believe the observer needs to be aware of short and medium cycle 'context'.  It has always been my view that the 'independence' of roulette spins is a fallacy.

These variations can be observed and can be read and acted upon, ie inter-reacted with, from short cycles to longer cycles. Empirical observation is necessary. I am not suggesting you necessarily 'talk to the wheel', and some actually do I observe, in both glowing and resentful terms depending on their success or failure, with the common mistake of directing praise or hate to the dealer, who is actually a mere intermediary in the process. Instead some reflection, or even meditation ( which is highly focused thought and responsive) might be considered.

Through that tuning into the moment  a successful response to the focus on target  and editing or extension of the hunt can be decided upon. This will sound fuzzy to some but actually fuzzy logic is part of reality and the bigger picture of 'reality'. Concrete linear just cannot cope.

No 'equipment' is needed for such observation other than the human mind.


XXVV
11Feb2014am

[Bayes]

Why does everything have to have an 'outward reason' such as wheel bias, dealer signature or humidity levels or type of wheel, bucket or scalloped, or size of ball or weight of ball. These may be a part of the story or they may be symptoms or characteristics of something that goes deeper. The analogy of medicine is intended and increasingly 'holistic' medicine is seen as a truer and more helpful approach to understanding.

Why cannot variations be from 'within', 'intrinsic' ,and actually from the essence of nature, ie 'natural rhythms' as part of the expression of randomness. The number just 'is'.

XXVV, I would argue that taking into account external factors IS a holistic approach, given that the dealer, the wheel, ball, humidity etc are all potentially factors which influence where the ball ends up. The 'nature' of the purely abstract or 'perfect' game (as far as the casino is concerned) is one in which the influence of those external factors is minimized. Also, given your objection to RNG, it seems to me that you implicitly recognize that such factors are a help rather than a hindrance, given that it's a reasonable assumption that an RNG implements the purely random game more perfectly than a the wheel + ball + dealer + environment system.

[Turner]

All of which implies that a real wheel produces some kind of unique random. Considering they (casinos) spend so much time ensuring there is no bias...there won't be any discernable difference to notice.
Having said that...I can see people trusting the openly visible wheel to the RNG black box. That has to be the reason or you are believing the wheels random isn't random....for one reason or an other. Its either random or it isn't.

[Bally6354]

I kind of fall into the camp of cause and effect as opposed to random.

The cause and effect can change because of all sorts of conditions....so how random is it really?

just my 2 pence worth!

[XXVV]

XXVV, I would argue that taking into account external factors IS a holistic approach, given that the dealer, the wheel, ball, humidity etc are all potentially factors which influence where the ball ends up. The 'nature' of the purely abstract or 'perfect' game (as far as the casino is concerned) is one in which the influence of those external factors is minimized.


I am not so sure that is the only Casino intention. The shallow scalloped dish  and the light ball skips much more along the surfaces than  a heavier ball and bucket / slot type wheel in an effort to deter ballistic measurements and dealer efforts to target a section ( avoiding fraud). They endeavour as much pure randomness as possible given the relative crudity of their apparatus. But I like the crudity because I don't want the randomness so pure ( in that this might spread numbers more - seems a crude understanding of randomness - just how clumpy can it get when pure?)


However what I like is the 'clunky human intervention' that seems to enable ( anecdotal evidence only) lots of consecutive spin repeaters which appeals to other overlay bets I apply and as we discussed not so important for WF3 play. It is my belief ( but I may be proven wrong that such clumping of consecutive spin numbers cannot occur so readily on RNG because of the relative 'purity' of the quality of randomness generated - a smoother spread perhaps - but then this may be (my) total misunderstanding of true random behaviour - comments please.

So actually I really have considered  all the casino efforts  whether variable motives ( confusing the players perhaps or avoiding cheating) irrelevant. However I don't want to be cheated and I think my only concern would be to ensure there was no statistically significant non alignment of the wheel, ie it is level and spins correctly and there are no magnets under the table (lol).


I don't care about the dealer, the ball, the 'signature', the speed, the action, the clothes, the make up, the wrist flick, the language, the number of revolutions, the lighting, the relative humidity, the mood of the dealer, and their tastes. I do care that the wheel be correctly balanced and aligned which all wheels are daily in my usual casino and this is witnessed publicly and done by Government Inspector.


Also, given your objection to RNG, it seems to me that you implicitly recognize that such factors are a help rather than a hindrance, given that it's a reasonable assumption that an RNG implements the purely random game more perfectly than a the wheel + ball + dealer + environment system.

Yes I think you are right, but I also think my idea needs further developing.


My 'objection to RNG', as I have stated in a private correspondence with you, may be completely incorrect and delusional. I am open to correction. My own experience is anecdotal on this subject. However it is my understanding that RNG can deliver a 'purer' random generation - whatever that may mean. I may be wrong in thinking that it cannot present the situations that I have personally witnessed which are supposed  ( probability theory calculations) billion to one experiences ( 5 consecutive spin repeat  x twice and a third within earshot in the same casino) outcomes. I have believed such would not be possible in RNG format.

How many spins had I observed live before those sightings. I estimate a mere 150,000 or so at that stage. Remarkable then to experience what I did. Something is not right then between theory and practice it seems.

So I have gone on to consider RNG is not for me because the consecutive spin repeaters I am advised by colleagues are less likely. But as for definitive proof I cannot say.

Sure, the casino 'clunky features' I don't mind, and thus may 'help' in a notional sense for the 'impure' randomness I seek, but the real point and principle I am attempting to make is that all that 'fluff and nonsense' ( we could list 10,000 variables) is a smokescreen really for what I consider to be the generator here, and that is nature itself working through the clunky mechanism of the casino operators.
Now is that nature any less or more pure or effective than the nature that drives RNG.

Thinking on this it is the same nature of course but the medium for expression is different and thus the filters and blocks and variables may make a difference to bring about the characteristics of outcomes that appear to be more common in such environments as a live casino.

Maybe the mathematics of RNG are a different model than live play observed spin data mathematics.

So maybe I have answered my own question here and yes the holistic approach is right but it is merely in the characteristics of the outcomes in a live casino environment that I would prefer to harness and utilise as I believe there is a difference, even if only definitively proven on large scale  (100,000 spins) results, but most probably not in small samples.

I don't consider 150,000 spins ( as earlier stated) a monstrous sample size and it took me 12 years to attain that from small beginnings. These days I estimate I witness live at a casino about 25,000 spins *per year. Thus any day now I anticipate another fiver or sixer!

I would correct my earlier question and now suggest ( but I may still be wrong) that RNG and live casino wheel 'inspiration and origin' are one and the same ( or are they in mathematics), but through goodness knows how many 'deflections' the results vary from one pinball machine model to another - one is just bulkier and shinier - the other is a black box.  Yes 'obstructions and influences' - these are my friends!

* live observation while playing.
however in reviewing noted and certified spin data probably 100,000 per year now - thus would have to include the 7 repeater at Bristol in that data.

XXVV
11Feb2014pm

[Number Six]

XXVV,

I doubt you or anyone else could tell the difference between live dealer data and an RNG sample, whether it's generated by software or hardware. Is it possible you just don't trust an outcome you can't see presented before your very eyes? I have no problem with it. I have taken five figures from an RNG in one sitting. Some people I know have taken more. And no, I'm not talking about pence.

Moreover, you should test your system against true random, as an academic exercise to see if the results are the same against numbers you do not know in advance. If you don't apply physics in your game, then your approach must be mathematical and if it's successful should logically be able to defeat any origin of randomness. It would be unusual to suggest, after all these years of playing, that somehow your success is down to you unwittingly using some kind of bias or dealer's signature. Not sure if that's what you're suggesting, can't really work it out to be honest.

[Franky]

 
#6

You play also on airball machines and winning on them too?