Quote from: sqzbox on April 03, 2015, 12:38:10 AM
But I was wondering - is Dane still around?

Last post here was in December, but he does post at the Roulette30 forum more regularly.

Nice to see you here again, Sam. I thought you'd given up on Roulette. 

Quote from: albertojonas on April 02, 2015, 12:06:45 AM
Correct me if i am wrong, but the above scenarios have the same probability of ten blacks followed by ten reds or twenty reds or twenty blacks...

Hi aj, nice to see you posting again. You are correct, there's no difference so no point in waiting for ten blacks/reds in a row (or any other trigger for that matter). I use a similar kind of moving template/pattern scheme myself, but probably in a slightly different way. I always revert to the start of the pattern after any win, I don't play it through to the end regardless.

Suppose my current pattern to bet against is R BBB RR B R (I generally pick a pattern between 8-10 spins long).

Here's a short example of how I adapt betting as the pattern unfolds.

1. Bet against R (element 1 of the pattern), so continue betting B until a R occurs.
2. R hits. Now I bet R because I'm betting against element 2 (B). So I just continue to bet R until a loss, which means a B has hit.
3. When B hits, I revert to step 1, so now betting B again.

So for a lot of the time, I'm betting FTL, it's only after losses that I'm actually betting against the pattern. I find that this keeps losses manageable and you get some great winning runs.

Of course, it can happen that the first part of the pattern repeats, in which case you will get quite a few more losses than wins, but a suitable progression will neutralize them, or you can just flat bet and make up the losses later when the winning runs come, and they always do. How I actually pick the current pattern is complex, but just using random patterns works pretty good too.

Hi BlueHood,

Nope, not me, I'm not a member of that forum.

Well, I thought I made it clear, maybe not. The site is not going to be by invitation only (a private blog), but I've taken it offline while I add more content. It will be up again in a few weeks and completely public. What you see is just the notice that Google puts up when the blog is only accessible to the author.

I certainly have no intention of keeping it private, I want as many visitors as possible. 

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.

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%.

Thanks guys and also to those who sent me pm's enquiring about the site. It is NOT a private blog - I've just taken it offline while I add the core sections.

Also, I've decided to make it about roulette rather than the even chances (of course, roulette includes  ECs anyway). This will broaden the scope of the topics and allow me to include more interesting stuff on biased wheels etc. I don't claim to be an expert on advantage play, but the site is more about how to use and apply statistical techniques.  As I mention on the site, it could be titled "learning probability & statistics through roulette".

It will also have a more neutral flavor to it, meaning less in the way of controversial claims and more about giving the hard evidence for various systems and methods commonly used by gamblers. I'm doing this partly because I'm using the Google Blogger platform, and I'm not sure about their policy with regard to gambling sites - so the emphasis will be on education, rather than "how to win at roulette".

Just thought I'd let you know that the site is unavailable at the moment because I'm making a few changes. Details later...

I would never think of playing roulette or any casino game as an investment, more like a job. It's not a passive income like stocks & shares or some other financial vehicle, where you just deposit 50k  then wait years for the positive expectation to materialize, unless you're buying shares in a casino. 

I agree with RouletteKEY, one advantage of casino games in general is the fast turnover and relatively small bankroll required. You don't need thousands, and I'm not sure how JP came up with those figures, doesn't it depend on what your financial targets are?

Although I don't think the house edge is the major factor in why most players lose, it certainly is important to pick games with as low HE as possible, preferably less than 1.5% (bacc, craps, and roulette EC with la partage/en prison). That rules out mug bets like the Tie.

The advantage of sports betting is that the odds aren't fixed, but then, you need a bigger bank and more patience because betting opportunities are fewer.

Quote from: soxfan on March 09, 2015, 10:44:31 PM
If all bs style resolve to close to 50-50 then what does it matter?

True, but some bet selections resolve faster than others.

Here is some shameless self-promotion. 

I mentioned a web site I'm working on a few days ago. I've since decided to widen the scope of it, so instead of it being mainly about my "system" and how to play it, it's now going to cover much more general stuff about probability, stats, and how to design (even-money) systems.

I will still be giving details of how I play and making the software available, but that will only be a relatively small part of what's on the site. When I've finished the core sections I'll be adding blog posts regularly on related topics.

This is a long-term project and I've only just started, so check back every week or so for updates.

So for anyone who's been reading it, I've made some changes, particular in the introduction.

http://www.roulettician.com

cheers!

I agree, it's a great book and probably the best of a bad bunch. But the progression will still fail if you don't have a good bet selection (I coded it years ago) and LGH doesn't give any advice on that apart from saying that the progression should "turn the tide using any sensible bet selection".

You're left completely in the dark as to what a "sensible" bet selection is. 

Quote from: horus on March 05, 2015, 10:56:46 AM
''I have seen more fortunes lost by people who became emotionally committed to one position that went against the trend than through any other folly in gaming!''

LoL....SO TRUE!! I wish I had this etched on my hand for all the times I have undone a lot of good work.

Yep, I agree. But I don't think the solution is follow the trend. It's too easy to get caught in a long whipsaw, however you define the trend. Then there's the question of when you start following it. It's all much too subjective for me.

And I agree with Stetson Bailey that negative progressions  are to be preferred over positive ones. 87.5% of the time you will encounter a streak length of at most 3, and this means that most positive progressions tend to "lock in" losses, instead of locking in wins as the D'Alembert type does.

Hi maestro,

I think I know the formula you mean; yes you can use it to find a sleep length corresponding to a particular z-score. Just be aware that it will be referring to 5 spin windows not individual spins. 

Quote from: XXVV on January 13, 2015, 11:41:08 PM
On one level they are correct. On another level there is a connection between outcomes using cluster analysis, so that past clustering can certainly have an impact on the immediate outcomes following.

In Louis G. Holloway's "Full Time Gambler" (my favourite gambling book), he says:

QuoteI derive great joy and hobby entertainment from computerizing those good games on which voluminous records are available. For example, on one hundred thousand authentic roulette numbers I made a "gap book". Each number was tabulated in terms of the gap figure between hits. Then each split, each street, each four-block, each six-block, each dozen, each column, and each even money play was "gapped". This greatly condensed the big run of numbers and put the whole thing into a new perspective or dimension. Through this kind of work, one is able to learn the true value of patterns and to avoid being tricked by coincidence.

By plotting graphs from the totals of each approach, we can determine the peak of each cycle -- when to get in and when to get out. Ridiculous, you say? They said that about the atomic bomb, television and the airplane, too. I am not saying we know exactly when to pick up a number or group of numbers. What I am saying is that over the long-range period we can and do turn the percentage and improve cold selecting.

I think this might be a useful set of stats to post in the math section, although I'm not quite sure what he means by "plotting graphs from the totals of each approach", which is open to more than one interpretation. Anyway, it's surely similar to what you mean by cluster analysis.