QuotePerhaps you were not paying attention in details...

I do not assume things, I can simulate to see and I am talking serious. Talk to any programmer like Reyth and he will confirm this. RNG is no magic wand. Randomness means no predictions possible in short run and in long run, it confirms to the law of large numbers. A real roulette is also a kind of True Random Number Generator. If I mix 100 numbers from random.org and 100 numbers from real casino records and make a 10k file, none in this world can sort them.
                             Do not reap fallacies and fantasies.

I have simulated over 50 million spins of RNG and over 5-7 millions real spins. I do not see anything like that. It is an illusion merely.

QuoteRNG's have a tendency to repeat more than the actual roulette wheels.

Really?
What made you form such opinion? Observation, experience or simulations?

Quote10 streaks of red,
then wait for a black to hit,

and the you bet that TEN RED won't HIT AGAIN.

Sadly, it won't make any difference because:
10 streaks of red will happen averagely once in over 1000 spins. You are almost guaranteed to get another streak of 10 in higher, in a million spins total.
so, u win 999 times and lose just once, u get negative still playing a million spins. Don't forget that u get to bet such way once in a thousand spins, so in making 1000 bets u need a million spins 1000x1000.

I wonder BTW, from where you learn all these fallacies. I clearly told u that u can not find a better than all bet by any waiting. Only correct MM can help you.

Quotealbalaha. i am on your side. but haven't you been preaching to stop attacking people?

I am just answering him...
I did not make a new topic just to curse anybody. See the difference. I am quite busy to talk of quarrels .

I even made trackers for his systems and posted somewhere on this very forum. They fail to win. I even wrote to Ion saliu but got no answer or clarifications on this ever.

In nutshell, do not try to get a bet that wins by itself or by any blind dragging with progressions. It is not so easy.

Earliest 18 numbers, could be a nice potential bet to earn with a little MM. Apply efforts there.

First of all, there is nothing like law of the third. It is a theory and not the law. Understand the difference first.

Secondly, whether you bet 1 nbr or 24 nbrs it can not create an edge for you itself.

Playing sleepers is evidently a bad idea since many of the sleepers/non-hit numbers may hit well after 200 or even more spins. They can only waste your chips.

Betting what has already hit looks better, at a glance but it may not win flat still.

The earliest 24 nbrs could be a nice bet but it would seek about 40 spins of tracking and if a few numbers get added fast, it could be a disaster.

Playing the earliest 18 nbrs could be worth thinking. With a sound MM, your expectancy to come out winner is definitely better.

Dear Angelo,
   It would be far better if you do things upside down here. Instead of betting the unseen/sleeper 18 nbrs, you bet the 18 nbrs that came first. You get the first 18 nbrs almost always before first 30 spins. If you bet them further, they are most likely to do far better than the sleeper 18s.

  It seems you hand test most ideas and that makes you get confused regarding what will work in long term and what not.
Remember, the unhit numbers will have about 2-3 numbers at least that you should not expect to win even once in 100 bets. That makes a huge difference.

Rest is only money management.

QuoteBy the time there have left 18 unseen numbers the reversed countdown begins, I've created a progression specifically for such case.
In first 2 spins aiming for 1 hit, in 4 spins 2 hits, in 6 spins 3 hits and so on...

So, we bet all 18 unseen numbers, so far and remove those which hits after we start to bet yet we do not get a net win? Is it roughly you prescribe?

Can you tell me how will you win, this way? What is your suggested progression?

Quote from: Mr J on March 07, 2016, 04:22:57 AM
"Denzie???
Where art thou? >> He's currently making a chart from testing a 386 step for a Marty on the columns. If it works on paper......

LMAO   

lots of insane and unplayable ideas. Sadly even they fail to win in testing/simulations even with 100k chips.

QuoteThey 'say', single will always, hit 100times, in 100cycles, that 3700spins.

Who is this genius here who made this statement? It is even possible to get only 4-5 hits of a particular number in a 1000 spins span. None in the world can give an exact figure in random game. Am I sitting with kindergarten kids?

QuoteAnyone here knows, how many spins, the virtual limit for two-numbers to sleeps??

Expect the farthest two numbers to remain sleeper together for about 300 spins, in the worst time. Remember, a virtual limit is only an estimated limit and that can be crossed as well.

@BA,
         I read your opening post in this topic, yet failed to understand what are you going to bet, why and when.

I got it that it is something to do with law of the third. You assume there will be at least 18 to 30 unique numbers in the 37 spins cycle.

Now, how do you propose to extract profit here? How and when you will start to bet and what exactly you propose to bet?

Without any prejudice to any conclusion regarding whether your this system can work in long run or tank let me brief you regarding why Steve behaves this way to certain members.

  Whenever a member gets to talk that any system can win in long run, he starts feeling bad as this is harmful to his business of "cheating devices". He then ask any such person to either prove it immediately or he bans him. There are two reasons for such behaviour.

1. If someone has a concluding method and he writes that openly in any forum, who the hell will risk his legs being chopped by casino staff using cheating devices?

2. Such person will not write other silly topics ever and hence become useless for adding links to the google that fetches new kids to these forums seeing the ads, that is the main motive behind running such forums.

So, he is double harmful to Steve irrespective of what his system works in long run or not.

Steve claims that one of his Computers can do 15 numbers betting with 93% accuracy. This is the biggest joke of the millenium. If it is true what one needs to do is to enter high roller room and bet $10k chips and earn a few millions in no time. Why selling for the value of a single chip?

This person has been jailed for mass scam. Don't forget that.

QuoteExcel file provides pseudo-RNG results which means that in large totals it's repeating the same results more than normal.

There is no way to seed either Excel RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, which are rumored to be initialized from the computer's system time. Technically, a seed is the starting point for generating a sequence of random numbers. And every time an Excel random function is called, a new seed is used that returns a unique random sequence. In other words, when using the random number generator in Excel, you cannot get a repeatable sequence with the RAND or RANDBETWEEN function, nor with VBA, nor by any other means.

In early Excel versions, prior to Excel 2003, the random generation algorithm had a relatively small period (less than 1 million nonrecurring random number sequence) and it failed several standard tests of randomness on lengthy random sequences. So, if someone still works with an old Excel version, you'd better not use the RAND function with large simulation models but there is absolutely no trouble with excel 2007 or higher even for the longest simulation.

So, do not use the rhetoric excuse for failure of a method based upon fallacies on randomness of a PRNG.

   Blue Angel and Kav are two different people, in my opinion although they may be in same geographical zone. Reyth is in altogether different area (I think USA). Steve lacks any character himself to point on others.