If I see a marquee with 6 unique numbers at the top, the probability is 55% that there will be no 7 consecutive numbers. I will play the last 6 numbers, expecting a repeat number with a probability of 55%. I lose that bet. Now, the probability to see an 8th unique number is: 64%. If I play the last 8 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat roulette number with a 64% probability. Still lost? If I play the last 9 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat-number with a 73% probability. By now, I should have won almost every time. If not, if I play the last 10 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat-number with an 80% probability.

Let's figure out a cost: 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers. Keep in mind that a martingale is possible after this point (a bad-case scenario). I have an 80% probability to win 36 units. If I randomly play one roulette number for 38 spins, my winning probability is 65%. If you randomly play one roulette number for 30 spins, the winning probability is 55%.

Playing 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers leads to an 80% winning probability. Think about it next time you are at a roulette table. You can afford to play exactly 30 roulette bets. You are cautious and you play one number at a time for the next 30 roulette spins. The probability that you will lose all your money in 30 spins is: 45%. That is, the chance (degree of certainty, actually) is 45% that you will NOT win a single time. Playing 4 (four) wheel spins 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers: Your chance to lose all your money is: 20%. Your degree of hope is twice higher than in the first case scenario. You be the judge!

Just to add to that...

The possibilty for 5 consecutive numbers with at least one duplicate is 24%. So that's roughly a 1/4 shot. Many times I see things with a 1/4 probability go missing for 14+ times and then bunch up when they do start hitting. I think that's what wipes a lot of players out at the table because they are using a static bunch of numbers...then a small group of numbers (ie. 4, 5 or 6) start hitting like crazy which they are not on and the player then assumes they surely can't hit again! Guess what ? They do! I see that a lot. 

I have sent away for L G Holloway's book and am looking forward to reading his take on gaps.

I do have some ideas for this. I sometimes like to work in multiple streams of numbers (a bit similar to Wendell I suppose) Working in 4 streams is my limit and I think it could be a good way to check for a kind of RTM effect (return to mean) when the unique numbers have thrown up some long sequences and then return to shorter sequences.

Here is a picture of a page in my 4 stream book. It covers from 0-36.

The left hand side is where I write down the results on my roulette card and the right hand side is where I work out my bets for the next spin. You can imagine it gets some funny looks in the casino.[smiley]aes/confused.png[/smiley]

The theory is that one of the 4 streams should produce a run at some point where you are getting frequent repeats within a small frame of numbers.

Of course the 4 streams can also cover 12 dozens, 12 columns, 24 diferent e/c's and 24 lines.

For anybody not sure about the 4 streams.

The first one is the numbers as they appear.

The second one is the wheel layout.

The Third+Fourth ones are manufactured.

I have always found this idea intriguing because you will get hot numbers just the same in streams 2, 3 or 4 as in stream 1. People go on about dealer's signature and croupiers hitting sections.....you will see exactly the same action going on in streams 2-4 like a run of numbers hitting 15,32,0,12,32,4 etc...(voisins) It's all an illusion a lot of times IMO and I don't think dealer's signature exists to the degree a lot of people seem to think it does. Anyway, that's all a different story. The point is working with 4 streams also means you wouldn't need to be sitting around all day if you were wanting to play something like RTM. You will get more opportunities across the 4 streams than just playing 1 alone.

The hard part comes from calculating the bets you need to place for streams 2-4 because they are not coventional. If you need to bet number 8 from stream 4 according to my chart/book, that does not correspond with number 8 on the physical wheel. But I can go down to number 8 in the chart/book and look across to stream 4 and it will tell me the corresponding number that I need to play. You couldn't physically work it all out in your head. (I don't even think rainman was that good, lol)

I will do some more testing of the Asterix* Strategy and see how it goes.

Quote from: horus on March 22, 2015, 05:01:59 PM

But I like the idea of a cold stream with high running counts starting to warm up a bit. Things definately come in waves/cycles. I think the trick behind all this will be to figure out what the 'sweet spot' for the running counts are. Playing single numbers, I think playing up till it reaches 10 could still be a bit costly. Maybe 7-8 would be better and something like 3-4 for the splits. But that's just an early guesstimate. Keeping a relatively low running count would allow for ramping up the stakes on a winning run without things getting out of hand. It's important to make the most of it when things are going your way.

Thanks horus

As 'the one far above' and with a keen eye you post some very interesting material on roulette in particular. It is my personal view that roulette has vastly more opportunity for leveraged profit ( relative to risk bank size) than any other casino game. It is a game not understood, which is just as well, for this enables serious players to take notes, record data, and even take along workbook schedules allowing recommended bets. This may be more comfortable on live internet but I have sat in the casino and seen players adjacent with miniature wheels and arrows, bundles of paper, books and note pads with multi coloured pens.

I often play with black and red pens and use the provided casino roulette card to write out my matrix codes spin by spin for four streams or sets of codes.  As I have been doing this for at least ten years at the same casino they just think I am another nutter and do not even blink, unless I bring out a mobile phone and then it is keep clear. Of course their cameras will have seen my detail and I never attempt to hide my notes and sometimes will even talk to the pit boss about what I am about to target. They have seen it 'fail' enough over the years to have no fear -lol. One sweet Chinese dealer suggested I must be a multi-millionaire with such a 'system'.

As always, it is how you handle the 'tools' that makes all the difference, and that is why the hours of practice and refinement have been put in.

As always, the hardest part of winning at roulette, although I can say this having invested the time, is self management. Knowing when is sufficient, and when to stop. It does take years and I have a close friend, brilliant, yet still has doubts over 'compulsive behaviour' patterns when he has walked away with a loss after achieving 'sufficient' earlier gains.

The casino cameras have seen me win and lose, so there is comfortable accord. I do not seek to take excess profit from my regular local or matters would become uncomfortable. I try to keep a positive edge nevertheless on the macro scale while experimenting and improving efficiencies on the micro scale.

I hope you enjoy the LGH book. Note he does not give away his hard won specific details ( very smart) but he does talk in principle and with sufficient examples to guide your own very valuable research and development.

As a visual analyst I prefer to graph data and the optimum areas and timing then become very clear.

My bet utilises two phases and the second phase, being a 'recovery' phase, does utilise some RTM principles and treads warily to beat 'gamblers fallacy', although in rare, very rare situations, the extreme skew behaviour is best left well alone. I can play through it eventually but the drawdown and time consumption is just not very efficient, so I try to read the signs and exit stage left when advised.

It may be of some use to you but as I bet an optimum spread of nine single target numbers, my recovery will involve close repeat appearance three times, more often than not, of these targets within multiple up to 7 spin attacks, after not appearing a prior 11-21 ( average spread) spins. Sometimes these outcomes will be hit, hit, hit, all within one or two spins spreads and the earlier loss is quickly recovered and in fact often results in profit. Sometimes it is slower. This is more easily managed as it is all flat staked. I do not chase loss to extremes. However the spread and distribution of outcomes for this second phase has been based on empirical evidence, and not probability theory. There is indeed a sweet spot for phase one and phase two (when required) for my bet. The sweetest spot though is to exit with perfect timing.

One key to success/ efficiency is to step outside the live game for a while during a correction ebbing phase and go virtual. There are triggers and signs that enable this. Correction phases are full of false signals that the unwary would chase and thus result in catastrophic loss. Empirical research has shown where the stops and starts occur using groups of numbers as I have outlined. Yes to reduce risk exposure you can play splits or streets I prefer - but note if you have a winning strategy why dilute your power and that is why I play straight up always and if streets are targets I play the individual numbers within.

However while being defensive toward loss, increasingly I attack wins so will step parlay say 2-3-5 'when things are going (my) your way'.

Roulette is a game of short cycles within cycles, and the payouts at 35-1 enable quick recovery from loss, and thus more efficient betting ( and drawing far less attention) than blackjack say, with much smaller risk bank, and risk of loss.

Lastly I would note in this context ( and thank you horus for your excellent ideas and effort) the practical advantage* of having a playing partner ( or part time mentor/ observer) at the table with you or nearby who can also understand the ebb and flow of this fluid game.

* thanks to recent post by The Crow.

Thank you XXVV for a very interesting post. You always raise so many good points.

I don't worry so much nowadays about any charts/books that I take into the casino. I am there to win and like to play my own game with the payouts at the game of roulette giving me the best opportunity to get in and get out with a decent return.

There are a lot of good reviews on the Holloway book. I never expect to find a miracle system in a book. I am satisfied if it can just spark an idea or two which I haven't previously thought about. My best idea for roulette actually came from reading a book on Baccarat.

I first discovered the idea of close repeats whilst reading RWD's book on Hot Numbers. His idea was along the lines that if you got 3 in 20 after an absence of 30......attack for 9 spins with an extra chip on spins 7,8,9. So I suppose that also has an element of RTM about it. However many times 3 hits would not go to 4 in my testing and live play of his concept. Also there are times when 2 going to 3 can be a stretch as well. That's where I think the 4 streams idea can bridge the gap a little because we are getting more bang for our buck. Obviously one of the most important aspects is knowing when to stop chasing and hopefully observing the 'running count' in my Asterix* idea will help a little.

The idea of a playing partner is a good one. Unfortunately most of my friends who like a bet are more interested in Horseracing than Roulette. Still, never say never.

Thanks again. 

Hi horus, interesting topic. I just wanted to point out that this is a bit misleading:

QuoteIf I see a marquee with 6 unique numbers at the top, the probability is 55% that there will be no 7 consecutive numbers. I will play the last 6 numbers, expecting a repeat number with a probability of 55%.

I think I know how you got this probability, although I make it 45% for at least 1 repeat in 7 numbers. That percentage only applies to the sequence taken as a whole sequence, not the next single bet on 6 numbers, which is always 6/37 or 16.2%.

Quote from: horus on March 22, 2015, 12:26:28 PM
You can afford to play exactly 30 roulette bets. You are cautious and you play one number at a time for the next 30 roulette spins. The probability that you will lose all your money in 30 spins is: 45%. That is, the chance (degree of certainty, actually) is 45% that you will NOT win a single time. Playing 4 (four) wheel spins 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers: Your chance to lose all your money is: 20%. Your degree of hope is twice higher than in the first case scenario. You be the judge!

The second bet is indeed better, but the actual probability of winning is 60%, not 80%. The probability of losing ALL the bets in the second case is 40%.

(1 − 6/37) × (1 − 7/37) × (1 − 8/37) × (1 − 9/37) = 0.4

So the probability of at least one win is 0.6 or 60% compared with betting a single number for 30 spins which is 56%.

1 − (36/37)³⁰ = 0.56

In each case, if the bet doesn't win until the final spin of the sequence you will make 6 units. The difference is that with the single number bet you might get a hit early on in the sequence, so it's up to you whether you sacrifice the extra 4% probability  of winning overall for the lure of a bigger win.

QuoteAs always, the hardest part of winning at roulette, although I can say this having invested the time, is self management. Knowing when is sufficient, and when to stop. It does take years and I have a close friend, brilliant, yet still has doubts over 'compulsive behaviour' patterns when he has walked away with a loss after achieving 'sufficient' earlier gains.

Knowing when to stop should not be an issue.  Everything that needs to be said about gambling discipline, and money management can be written on just a page or two.  Gambler's waste far too much time talking about it, and looking back, rather than focusing on how to actually get an edge and win.  Professional roulette players don't try for only a few units at a time, we try for hundreds of them.

QuoteIt may be of some use to you but as I bet an optimum spread of nine single target numbers, my recovery will involve close repeat appearance three times, more often than not, of these targets within multiple up to 7 spin attacks, after notappearing a prior 11-21 ( average spread) spins. Sometimes these outcomes will be hit, hit, hit, all within one or two spins spreads and the earlier loss is quickly recovered and in fact often results in profit. Sometimes it is slower. This is more easily managed as it is all flat staked. I do not chase loss to extremes. However the spread and distribution of outcomes for this second phase has been based on empirical evidence, and not probability theory. There is indeed a sweet spot for phase one and phase two (when required) for my bet. The sweetest spot though is to exit with perfect timing.

What empirical evidence?  There is no supporting evidence that says that a 7 spin attack is better than an 8 spin attack.  Cheery picking entry and exit points based on numeric data alone is a waste of time without real information, such as the playing conditions.  Any spin data that you may have is simply curve fit to produce what you feel is the ideal result.  In reality, it is meaningless and carries no statistical significance whatsoever.

The LGH book is, at best, entertaining.  However, I find it hard to be believe that he was ever a "full time" gambler.

In order to beat roulette, players must focus on the wheel, not just the reader board.


-Xander

Thank you for the corrections Bayes.

To be honest, I thought the figure of 80% was too high. With only a 4% margin, I would rather play a single chip at a time and try and capture an early win.

I gave my Asterix* strategy a runout at the casino tonight and I hit a few numbers and had a few near misses which was entertaining. I used 8 as the cut-off point for the running count.

I removed a couple of my own posts on my Asterix* idea because I think it was too complicated and there is an easier way which seems to make more sense. That is to have a 'rolling' 4 streams of maybe 6/7/8 numbers and look for when these set of 6/7/8 numbers start producing repeats after a quiet spell. I will have a good think about it and come back when I have somthing more concrete.

This image gives a better idea of what's going on with the Asterix* idea.


This is a 'Rolling 8'. So 4 different streams of numbers only working on the previous 8 spins.

The yellow boxes indicate a repeat. My theory is that you will get periods in the different streams where the yellow boxes will bunch up. Maybe more so after a period where a stream was all white.

cheers.

Here is something for anybody who likes playing the six-lines (1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-30, 31-36)

[attachimg=1]

Now instead of using 4 streams, I will just use the first 3 because this can give me up to an even money bet using the six-lines.

What I am looking for is a sixline that hits twice with any other sixlines in between only hitting once.

Look at stream 1 for an example....

The first three are 2, 4, 2.  So that's a double 2 with one 4 in between. That would be a trigger to start betting the 2 sixline (7-12).

Then just a little later on....it hits 1, 2, 1. So that's a double 1 with one 2 in between. So that's now the trigger for the 1 sixline (1-6).

Let's look at stream 2.

This is a nice one. The first three are 5, 3, 3. So that's a double 3 at the backend. That's a trigger for the 3 sixline (13-18) and it goes on a run.

Stream 3 and the first three are 2, 5, 5. So that's a double 5 at the backend and the trigger is the 5 sixline (25-30).

Now here is one of my rules of thumb. The fourth result was a 2 and that now leaves the first four results in stream 3 as 2, 5, 5, 2. But I would still play for the 5. WHY? Because that's the most recent double. It hits again twice in a few spins and the 2 does not show.

There are two occasions on spin 6 and 10 where there is a double win.

Once again.....you could wait for a cold stream to start hotting up before going on the attack. One thing I have particularly noticed over the last few years is how six-lines can really streak in short bursts. So using a 3 stream approach could be a good way to reduce the time using a type of RTM attack on the six-lines.

cheers.

The above example was the first 10 numbers from a live casino yesterday and it's a great example.

Here are the chips placed and the results.

Spin 4. 6 chips placed. Lost 6 = -6.
Spin 5. 18 chips placed. Won 36 = +18. (+12)
Spin 6. 18 chips placed. Won 72 = +54. (+66)
Spin 7. 18 chips placed. Won 36 = +18. (+84)
Spin 8. 18 chips placed. Won 36 = +18. (+102)
Spin 9. 18 chips placed. Won 36 = +18 (+120)
Spin 10. 18 chips placed. Won 72 = +54. (+174)

Running the picture on a bit further......

[attachimg=1]

Here is something interesting to note in Stream 3.

The trigger is the 1 six-line (1-6) and there have been no wins in Stream 3 for a while. So it's cold. It also has the least number of triggers with only three so far.

So if there are no wins and no triggers....That means the six-lines in that stream are alternating.

So let's look at row 15-19

1
5
6
2
1   are the six-lines.....

If I don't get a win or new trigger...it can only go to six-lines 3 or 4.

The next six-line was 3.

Now I have....

1
5
6
2
1
3

If I don't get a win or a new trigger now...it can only go to six-line 4.

The next six-line was 4.

cheers.