Yes. Looks very complex. I don't think it is a winner.

I have millions of actual data and you can refer my blog to get some but I stopped gathering more since no two session can be identical being totally random. I prefer using www.random.org to get True Random Number Generator data. I use a bit of excel RNGs too but I heard they are not perfect, so random.org is the best place, in my humble opinion. German casinos data can be good too.
              There is nothing like real wheel data or RNG data, in real world. All are random and unpredictable.

     

Once I also get astonished to see this but when u check it deep, it is as much a failure as anything else, in long run. good for trying your luck in a casino.

congratulations Chris,
             Can we see any snap of baby, maybe with you?[smiley]aes/angel.png[/smiley]

I have worked too much on repeaters and when I wrote my "finest method" that I also call, "thrice on marquee", everybody else was busy in EC/dozen methods. The latest winning approach of XXVV is nothing else but "thrice on marquee" and if u see MST created by Ophis, my abovementioned method is there as "FMODR". XXVV or anybody following his method can easily simulate his method through MST.
                      Repeaters are one of the finest way of picking straight up bets but this betselection is not a panacea in itself. If someone feels that one can earn by playing repeaters, flat bet, I must say it is a huge mistake. A small playable session of upto 200 spins always have a chance to get unbeatable variance due to "law of small numbers". If someone has won 20k spins playing any kind of repeaters with flat bet, he is merely lucky.


            Regarding the main question: how many series of 8 unique numbers with no repeats can come one after another, in my experience with playing latest 10 unique numbers (I have not simulated 8 yet), 2 or 3 in succession can be seen in every thousand spins and upto 6 in a million. So, I believe there can be max 7-8 such series of 8 unique numbers having no repeat.
                      Mind it, that if we see/calculate permutation and combinations in which 8 numbers can appear from 37 choices, it is not impossible to see a longer series.

Why Gone? those who don't want to chat can ignore it.[smiley]aes/thumb_down.png[/smiley]

talked to Victor, thomasgrant, ladyK etc. I love this great feature.

Number Six,
            It is easier said than done. Number 3 is not what I encountered as worst but that is a public compilation of american roulette available openly. I have crossed more than 10 millions spins with ophis bot and it must be having much more permutation and combinations than 15k spins of zumma.
                     Can you or anybody else beat #3 challenge within any reasonable bankroll and table limits with any unambiguous manner that is not reverse engineering the specific odds of number 3? If there can be any sensible way to beat such variance, it will help to beat the second worst and third worst numbers too.
            All that we have learnt so far is to handle "comfortable sessions" that luckily come to us. No bet selection ensures smooth hit rates. All can have same fate in sessions as of number 3

QuoteWhat could be worse? Let's say, 328 hits in 15000 spins?

                  There can be even no hit in 15000 spins, if we talk of probability.

Quote It happens over a few spins or many spins, and the variance is exclusive to your system. To someone else it may be entirely normal. When you are losing, others are winning.

           I am talking of a specific bet and who is winning while I am losing? The problem is same for all. There can be different approaches to play it, though and I am asking for that only.

Quote from: Number Six on November 13, 2013, 12:10:46 PM
When the win is "assured" within the table limits, the risk is 0%, regardless of how much you splurge on the progression. That is absolute perfection. In the real world how do you know a level of variance is the worst? In your Zuma example the SD is little over 3.0 for a 00 wheel. That is rare but by no means the worst you'll encounter. And it can take a different form every time. In your theory the longer you play the more you win. In reality the longer you play the closer you get to ruin.

What could be worse than 329 hits in 15000 spins? It means one hit in 45.6 spins on an average. That too for entire 15k spins. I have thrown my open challenge around this worst case which none could dare to handle, so far. 

Everyone knows that variance may momentarily come on any bet but such persistent variance surely kills the bankroll even with too much of chips with you.
     

If anybody is not aware of progression mystery of betting one number to earn only one unit, have a look here:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/18734189/makes-casino-absolutely-unbeatable-long-run-observations#.UoQdYdJkNY8

For example, if it beats the harshest example of variance available to all, i.e. #3 of zumma book of american roulette that has only 329 hits in 15000 spins. Say max bet goes to 200 units. Acceptable?

All of us know that aggressive progressions that are theoretically winner of any session like martingale, labouchere and fibbonacci can get us close to infinite in their "run from hell" sessions. This reality makes them "practically failure" and they can cause so much losses in one bad session to ruin your bankroll completely.
            If there can be a progression that takes care of variance and can generate profit in long run without ever getting at table limits, how many would like to bet 1 to 100 unit progressions for assured profit?

Identity theft is possible when you deal with not so recognized casinos. Paddypower or ladbrokes or william hill are not going to sell your identity documents to anybody.

Congratulations on your birthday and forum's rebirth.

Law of third says that in an average cycle of 37 spins there has to be about 12 numbers that won't appear. Repeaters are an open truth in every cycle.
You can't expect all 37 unique numbers coming in 37 spins.
Since there are minimum 4 to max 18 repeaters and there are only three dozens to fall any number apart from 0, at least two repeaters will fall in a single dozen.
 
There is no innovation in this interesting looking finding.
You can't win for sure even with a million chips due to this.

In 37 spins, there will be 10 Reds. What is the use of such knowledge? Can we apply any progression strategy that can get benefit from this "universal truth"? No.[smiley]aes/stop.png[/smiley]