Quote from: Blue_Angel on June 14, 2017, 07:41:23 PM
RNG's are as good as random, none roulette professional bets on RNG's.

I do, but not exclusively. And FYI, I don't play at BV any longer. Too many issues with disconnections.

Betting on random numbers is good practice for the "real" thing. If you can beat RNG you can beat anything, you should try it sometime. 

Hi Petr, what is the VR ratio, or is it a secret?

Quote from: fanroulette on June 15, 2016, 08:53:18 AM
You tell me. I have no idea. What did I do wrong? My username has been deleted on the forum. I can't access the account.
No warning. No nothing. I do not remember posting something I shouldn't.

Well I guess they didn't want to have my software compete with the shitty methods they post everyday.
I thought I'd do something for the community but apparently they don't like it when you don't tell them the entire method and everything "behind the scenes".

As far as I care the admins from rouletteforum.cc can suck it.

Hi fanroulette,

When did you post over at rouletteforum.cc? There's a section specifically for those who sell systems; did you post there? Your post may have been deleted if you posted elsewhere.

BTW, does your system bet on every spin or do you have to wait for the right "conditions"?

Edit: I guess the above post answered my question. So how many actual bets were made in the 2M spins above? Thanks.

Quote from: fanroulette on June 12, 2016, 11:35:34 AM
As most of you have been aware, I launched a roulette predictor app on android based on a system I have been working on.

Do you have a link to the app? Thanks.

New article: Runs & Gaps

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 04:26:25 PM
"If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something"

I assume this means if you have a steadily increasing graph that would indicate we might be on to something.

Take a look at the attached 4 graphs.  They are for about 90,000 spins each.  Assuming these were for 90,000 placed bets, would this be the type of steadily increasing profits that you would associate with an "Edge"?

Actually I was thinking of the z-score increasing, but since they correlate with each other it amounts to the same thing. 

BTW, I've added an option to the "Coupon Collector Calculator". You can now enter a number of trials and it will find the probability of getting at least M coupons within the X trials.

E.g. there is a 72% chance that at least 23 different numbers will show up in 37 spins.

Thanks Gizmo for the kind words.

QuoteYou might set the foundation for mathematically considering short duration probability beliefs with regards to gambling beliefs.

Most of the articles after the first dozen or so will be about using Bayes' rule to do just that. I think you'll like them because it will vindicate your method of bet selection. The "long run" relative frequency idea  isn't very useful for the gambler, it's better to update your selections as and when new data comes in, which is what Bayes' rule is all about.

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 AM

What criteria could we use to verify the claim?

If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.

The Van Keelen test?

What would an edge look like?

What would a test look like?

Hi Nick,

I assume you're talking about raw bet selection here and not any kind of MM/Progression. According to the "long run" a series of EC bets will only make a profit  in roughly 1 in 20 sessions of 5000 placed bets, so that would be a good starting point. If it's in profit after this you could get the z-score which is :

z = (w - n*p) / sqrt(n*p*(1-p))

If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something. A score of +3 would only occur about 0.3% of the time, and anything higher even less, so for example if you have placed 5000 actual bets (not just spins) and have 2600 wins and 2400 losses, the score would be

z = (2600 - 5000 * 0.4865) / sqrt (5000 * 0.4865 * 0.5135) = 4.74 standard deviations above the mean, which would be pretty impressive.

Hi Nick,

Interesting thread. Here's a suggestion: since the VDW works on any binary (two-valued) sequence, perhaps you could try it on multiple representations. For example the stream of P/B or R/B could be converted to Chop/Streak and Singles/Series. You could then apply VDW to each of these and only bet when they all "agree". Just a thought.

New article: The Law of the Third

update: there was a chart missing. Should be fixed now.

New article: A Test for Randomness

A creative system designer might get a few ideas from this. 

Quote from: tdx on May 15, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
I will bet everything that I own that won't happen.

And you would be right to. I was hoping I'd made it clear that there's a big difference between the absolute numbers of head vs tails and the proportion of heads vs tails.

It's only the proportion which equalizes as you flip more times. The difference between H & T increases, contrary to popular belief.

Obligatory post on the GF.

http://www.roulettician.com/articles/article3.html

What Steve didn't take into account in his calculations is the fact that the 10% is taken from net winnings; it's not applied to every winning bet.

There are a couple of examples on BV's site showing how it's done. The fact is that playing the no zero game can make a big difference to your bottom line, especially if you're playing a lot of numbers.