Quote from: Big EZ on December 03, 2015, 05:59:15 PM
You say it happens all the time. How often in 100/200/300 spins does a dozen sleep for 8 times in a row?

If my math is correct does this mean there are 1,251,677,700 different 12 number combinations that can be made from 36 numbers?  How many combinations have you created to play in a casino environment, if you don't mind sharing

As far as the example of the 100 spin chart there are at least 10 locations from the 4 sets of three dozen possibilities from above that have 9 sleepers in a row or more. I track 12 different dozens, six are table layout bets and six are from two memorized sets and placed as inside layout bets. To be clear, a set is 36 unique numbers to bet from at a time.

Quote from: ice789 on December 03, 2015, 06:46:17 AM
example ?

That's one vote for not seeing it by written description, in other words, without an example, perhaps.

How about you or someone else creating an example from the description.

Quote from: Jimske on December 02, 2015, 07:10:50 PM
That does help!  These methods are easy if you know them.  Try to explain them . . .  another story.  I've written two "manuals" for Baccarat play.  Granted, one was a bit complicated and took me 20 pages to explain it along with visuals.  The other was easier but still took a little doing before it could be understood by the uninitiated.

OK, let me try to explain a kind of parlaying type of an option. Let's just say that you are hunting for a sleeping dozen streak. Let's see how hard it is to explain a concept.

Say you go for the second sleeper in a row in a set of dozens, example 1-12. Let's say that that dozen slept once. So you bet enough on the other two dozens on the next spin that a win will allow you to bet 2 units on each dozen the next time for free. So I bet 4 & 4 on dozens 13-24 and 25-36. It wins. The sleeper holds up. 1-12 did not hit. Now you can try for a seven step parlay. 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 6-6, 9-9, 13-13, and 20-20. These seven steps are at no risk. You have taken 8 units and converted the win into 4 units, at no risk for later bets, in just one spin. All you need is 7 more sleepers or singles in a row. That's no risk to make 60 units.  Eventually you are going to hit seven in a row. It happens all the time.

Now let's see if that is understandable. Others can explain it all in other terms perhaps, just to see.

Quote from: Big EZ on December 02, 2015, 06:28:55 PM
Jim what Giz is saying is that he tracks the dozens horizontally and that this chart above reads like this for the dozens

2232312222111121112221122

Yes, I try to use any kind of chart that reveals a pattern or dominance through visual dexterity. You can see a pattern or a dominance without having to reason it out. Even this is better than as one single un-pronounceable word:
22 3 2 3 1 2222 1111 2 111 222 11 22

Quote from: greenguy on December 02, 2015, 03:53:32 AM
It's all Greek to me.

If it was Greek to you, then you would be complaining that stealing other people's money isn't enough to meet your needs, that your elected government has failed you.

Are you specially impaired? A dot means it didn't hit in that dozen of the set. An X means that it did hit in that dozen of the set. This is an example of a set: 1-12, 13-24, and 25-36. A spin can only fall in one dozen of any set at a time. This process of charting is known in the gambling world, on discussion forums, as communication. This chart is an attempt to communicate an idea to its readers. You do understand that this is a chart of 100 spins don't you? Perhaps you are viewing these charts on a very small screen and the line returns are messing the charts up? They look great on my laptop.

Quote from: Jimske on December 01, 2015, 10:21:57 PM
IMO the only reason there exists a HA is again the inability to predict from random outcomes. 

It is not necessary to predict the results of future events in order to effectively exploit future opportunities: Example the same 30 sleeping dozens in a row. The first two bets makes all the rest of the wins a free ride. For me that would be at least 25 wins in a row before a loss. BTW, a loss is a hint that the trend does not work anymore. Math during these 30 spins is worthless too.

Let's try this backwards. Because the house has two green zeros that don't belong to any of my dozen sets on the table layout, I can't take advantage of 25 singles in a row. The casino runs out and puts me in handcuffs and a giant calculator falls out of the sky and puts super glue all over my chips so that I can't use them. Then the math police come and water board me because it's against the law to break the law of averages.

"...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES."

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 01, 2015, 10:01:17 PM
Well, I have to admit that another very serious roulette player I've known keep saying the same things you are writing. So I begin to trust you.

Coincidentally, more or less, it's the same way of thought I apply at baccarat with 1 billion accuracy.

The differences with baccarat is that here we get a lower mathematical negative edge, finite card distributions and an asymmetrical factor.

So if you've found some positive expectation hints at roulette I think that at baccarat your edge should be higher.

I have not found a positive expectation while treading water in the 50/50 bets, any 18 numbers bet at a time. I get a grinding down that tends to follow the 2.7 / 5.4 percent decline of the house advantage while waiting. None of that bothers me much though. In live play, I'm expected to make minimum level bets by the casinos. What I'm waiting for are the opportunities that allow for huge dominations of 12 numbers at a time. They include many different ways of searching for strong streaks of the same 12 numbers hitting or strong streaks of the same 12 numbers sleeping. Another great thing is dominating singles or dominating series of dozen. One big kill per session is all that is needed to upset any slight mathematical disadvantage. It completely negates the deleterious effect of the slow grind downward.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 01, 2015, 09:02:12 PM
Even though I strongly think that roulette is an unbeatable game, for some reasons I like this statement.

The trick to taking advantage of these few opportunities is in positioning yourself first by not getting way behind in the session before reaching these opportunities in the first place. I know how to stay at even real easy. That skill must be learned first. 50/50 bets are great for this purpose. Attacking a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row is easier still.

I hope you like these simple aspects of the game even more.

I must correct a thing that I posted a few days ago and that was inadvertently deleted because it was off topic. I just discovered that the DSM-5 has classified problem gambling as an addiction, in it's own category for addiction too. So now there are those dollars for insurance companies to pay out for assessment and treatment too. Go figure. I wonder what became of the acknowledgment of the research regarding of a self cure? I guess that research flies in the face of the notion "once an addict always an addict." If you are always an addict you can never be cured. That's the way addicts are treated you know. I don't see this debate being over any time soon. Self cure has gone nowhere. It's still here.

Quote from: Jimske on November 30, 2015, 08:19:54 PM
So this explains  mathematical edge?  What are the dots for?  Go ahead and explain this  in simpler terms for those of us like me who are intellectually impaired.

Why does there have to be a mathematical edge for there to exist an advantage? If there are fluctuation waves that exist in early play, where the waves cycles above and below the base line value of the expected long term distribution of outcomes, commonly known as the house's edge, then for a while, the player has a mathematical short termed possibility of choosing to exit the game while in a positive position, especially if that position is just 1 unit up.

I find it disconcerting, that at a discussion forum about gambling, that my point is anything that excludes unclear. So don't act like I don't make sense. My point is simple. Why do I have to end my sessions on the base line value of the houses advantage or worse? You can't negate the existence of being ahead early on in a session. You can't deny the existence of fluctuating results from a session of betting. You are also clearly oblivious to the knowledge of coincidental circumstances. It is clearly possible to exit a steep downturn whenever you feel like it.

It takes all the spins to create a house's advantage. The casino doesn't make you bet the same amount and every spin too though. You have the control on when to quit, when to increase a bet, and when to pull back your bet amounts.

I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins. I don't ignore them, you do. You use arithmetic as an excuse not to discover what I'm trying to show you. I'm glad you do that stubborn thing though. It makes discussions here kind of my advantage. And what's funny about that is you have no idea what you are missing, and that comes through with that stone wall of probability is king thingy you do.

Just in case you can't see it, notice these from the beginning of the first set of dozens. There's a shifting dominance of one dozen to another dozen while the last dozen dominates as a sleeper.


.....x....xxxx.xxx...xx..
xx.x..xxxx....x...xxx....
..x.x..................xx



The text of the chart is in proportionally spaced font style that is the same for dots (not hits) and X's (hits). So if you look up the columns perpendicular to their written form you can see which dozen hit in the set for each spin. It's a horizontal chart, the bigger chart being 100 spins. At the end of each row is a number representing how many times in that 100 spins that dozen hit.

RePosted:

Quote from: Jimske on November 30, 2015, 06:18:46 PM

Nonsense.  Total misread.  I can take what I dish!  Your posts were deleted because they were OFF TOPIC.  You still haven't explained in any satisfactory way why one "negates an edge" by betting every hand.  Neither has Gizmo and neither has asymbacc.  So get off your high horse telling me what "we both know"

Here, they will be on topic.

Everyone knows that card counting 21 players wait for opportunity. It's not a mathematical advantage unless they deliberately target a favored condition.

Look at these spin results for 100 spins and 12 different dozens tracked in groups of threes: notice the red dominations?


.....x....xxxx.xxx...xx..x.x.....x..x.....xx..xxx.....xx..x....x...x.......x.x..xx.x..x...x...xx..x. -- 34
xx.x..xxxx....x...xxx.......x.x....x..xxxx..x....x...x..x..xxx..x.....xx..x.x.xx..x....xxx......x..x -- 38
..x.x..................xx.x..x.xx....x............xxx............xx.xx..xx..........xx.....xxx...x.. -- 24

....xx..x.x.x..x.x.x..x....xx..x.x..xxx...x.x.x..x....xx...x...x...xx.x...x.x...x.x...xx..x......xx. -- 36
..xx.......x.x.........xx.x..xx....x.....x......x.x..x....x.x.....x..x.xx..x..x..x......xx..x....... -- 26
xx....xx.x....x.x.x.xx...x......x......xx..x...x...xx...x....x..xx.......x...x.x...xxx.....x.xxxx..x -- 34

............x..xxx.x...xx...x...xx..x.x..x....x.x.x.x.x.....x..x..xx.x.xx.x.....x...x..x.....x...x.. -- 31
..x..xxx.xx..x....x..xx....x.x.........x..xx...x.......x..x.....x.....x....xxxxx.x.x.xx...x.......xx -- 32
xx.xx...x..x..x.....x....xx...xx...x.x..x...x....x.x.x..x..x.x...x..x....x........x.....xx.xx.xxx... -- 33

...........x..x..x.......xx...xxx.x.xx.......x..x....x..xx...xxx................x...........x.xx.x.. -- 24
..x..xxx.xx..x....x..xx....x.x.........x..xx...x.......x..x.....x.....x....xxxxx.x.x.xx...x.......xx -- 32
xx.xx...x...x..xx..xx..xx...x....x.x..x.xx..x.x..xxxx.x....xx....xxxxx.xxxx.......x.x..xxx.x.x..x... -- 44


You could just bet on positions that look like they are heading into a domination, if you know how. Bet $2 per number in the dozen that might be in a state of domination; bet $1 per number on the other dozen that coincidentally appears not to be asleep.

BTW, Gr8player plays like a genius level professional player too.

Quote from: greenguy on November 25, 2015, 08:45:17 PM
Good for you Gizmo,

But what about your legacy?

This is what someone told me 23 years ago while walking into a casino; "Bet big while you are doing good, and bet small while you are doing bad."

It's not much of a legacy you know.

I've shared it for years here at this forum. All I've done is refine my bet selection to the point of it exposing consistencies that have longer longevity than blind random guessing tend to offer, example the sleeping dozen for instance. Sleeping dozens run from 16 - 32 times in a row on good occasions. I love win streaks that last 15 to 30 spins. Who wouldn't?

Quote from: Xander on November 28, 2015, 06:20:22 PM
Gizmo,

I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say.  And..I suspect that you don't either.

I'll do the math for balance points for you then:

3 losses at $1 each number ($24) = $72 ; 2 wins at $3 each number ($72) = $72

I assure you that I will lose most of my spins during a losing streak. And conversely, I will win most of my spins during a win streak.

I noticed this though. You didn't respond with any proof. All you have is your very lame accusations, never needing to back up your self righteous indignation. This fundamentalism of yours is becoming a type of predictable behavior, much like your mother ship, probability. You are fast becoming a magnet for bad vibes. I'll bet secretly, in your grandmothers basement, you have a spandex jumpsuit with a cape and a full length mirror to check yourself out with, don't you?

Quote from: Xander on November 27, 2015, 07:21:21 PM
Oh, I'm sure you have.  I'm sure you have.    "Far better not to actually post the details because then nobody can show that it doesn't work. Just stick to no. (5) and make grand claims. Someone's bound to pm you and make an offer." -written by Mike

Being mathematically fundamentalist you must know basic arithmetic. Let's say that I bet $1 per chip on double dozens ($24) per spin while in all losing dominances. Let's say that I bet $3 per number ($72) per spin during all winning dominances. It doesn't matter what I bet during neutral times because those bets cancel each other out. For the house to beat me it must win three times more than the balance point of two wins for every loss. That's three net losses during any losing streak for every two net wins during a winning streak. Mind you, that is in a strategy/game that has an almost two-thirds chance of winning every bet.

I've already told everyone how to win at this game. I did so at least two years ago. I just like yanking your chain.

Now go ahead and tell us all about that river in Egypt, the Denial I think it is.

You have to prove it, mathematically, that it impossible to know when anyone is in a winning or in a losing streak.