Im very interested in Lines as EC's. 146 vs 235 is mathematically identical to R vs B or H vs L


Therefor, there is no advantage other than the fact that there are more opportunities. Say I see a series of 3 and consider a series of 2 or 1 is more likely from a maths point of view, I could play for a change. I could wait 15 spins to see a series of 3 (and, of course, see RRR BBB RRR BBB RRR)
However, there will always be a series of 3 somewhere in the 10 Lines as EC's withing the last 3,4,5,6 spins


Looking at Harry J's nice posts, he makes a nice way to see these without charting, but I can see the opposite too (red comments in his post)...so I am not sure of his method.


having said that, I have tested this extensively and found it better than just stable....with a different approach.


I play 123....I like this ....winning on 2 and recovering on the 3rd. If i have 3 losses in a row, I can leave 18u down (1-1-1, 2-2-2, 3-3-3) or continue to recovery with 2-2-2 until a new high.  This would take 6 losses in a row to lose 54. I haven't seen 6 losses in a row.


You are playing 2-2-2 as normal until your 18 loss is recovered....then continue with 1-1-1


More testing to continue

Quote from: HarryJ on September 24, 2013, 10:04:36 AM
  Hi Turner,
      Short answer, definate NO!! I regard each possible combination as a separate possibility. I do not separate into high or low or any other way. I bet which ever 3 lines I feel have the best chance, based on the last few spins.
      I am really trying to predict the wheel trend. Either REPEATING or CHOPPING.
The following example will probably illustrate what I mean.
  1
  4
  2   3 lines have shown in 3 spins. This indicates that the wheel is currently chopping (It indicates, to me,124 has hit 3 times vs 356? so its repeating not chopping....series 2 and 1 have a better chance to hit, so betting 356 is still viable). This could stop at any moment, but there are more reasons to follow the wheel than to reject it. Therefor bet that one of the 3 missing lines will show next. WE don't know which one so bet all 3.... 3-5-6
  3 W...... now bet opposite last 3....1-5-6
  2 L....... only 2 lines have appeared in the last 3 spins. The wheel is now favouring repeating (it already was).,,,,, Bet last 3 lines that appeared..... 2-3-4 (but this is now a 4 series for 234, which is repeating, so mathematically, bet the opposite, if variance is low using this method, it won't repeat...will it?)
  5 L..... We are back to 3 in 3.... Bet opp....1-4-6
  4 W..... Still 3 in 3..... bet 1-3-6
  1 W..... still 3 in 3...... bet 2-3-6
  6 W.....       "              bet 2-3-5
  1 L...... 2 in 3 ..... bet last 3 to show...  1-4-6
  3 L...... 3 in 3 .....bet opp...   2-4-5
  6 L .....    "          bet opp ...  2-4-5
      This shows the how and why I change the combinations. Over a standard session, 40 spins ave 36 bets, the variance is generally small. 17/19, 16/20 a full 1 SD ie. 15/21 is quite rare. This small variance can be handled with any number of progressions and a small bankroll.

            Regards      Harry

See, the wheel defiantly shows series of 3 or more, in lines, all the time. In theory, we should always bet the opposite of the trigger. If variance is low, as Harry said, then the chances of 4,5,6,7 series is low too, so betting opposite all the time is preferable.


So there (again, as ever) 2 ways to look at it. Follow the wheel, and when its repeating, bet repeating. But this is the case in both Harrys triggers.
Or, if variance is lower than normal by claim, or design, then variant events are less, so repeating isn't the way to go, because repeating is variant....so bet for change.


Confused...you will be!

There are streets in the columns....mathematically no different
1,4,7
10,13,16
19,22,25
28,31,34
2,5,8 etc.
21 hits....play 24 & 27

garnabby


There are instances of time reversal in quantum physics....I can name them if you wish, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is still an issue that there is still no theory for quantum gravity, in fact, gravity is eliminated, and there is still no link between big stuff theory and atomic sized stuff theory..., re: universal theory.


It amazes me that they all just carry on regardless with 2 completely incompatible theories.....but time is relevant to both


You have electrons being anywhere and everywhere at any given time, but the more join together, the more the anywhere and everywhere cancel out.


The probability of even what we consider to be a standard "tiny thing", the grain of sand being anywhere other than where it is phenomenally high. There are so many atoms in a grain of sand (around 70 million, million, million) its cancelling out makes it inert....from a quantum point of view.


And that's amazing to think we can't unify theory between an atom and a grain of sand 


A grain of sand to a quantum physicist is like the Earth compared to, well, a grain of sand !!


 

Quote from: FLAT_IN_O on June 15, 2014, 11:20:07 AM
Hard disc with predetermined numbers that can't miss as each spin one of 37 numb.
is magnetised....IMPORTANT......Take a close look when a ball drops in the pocket...
it is stuck in the middle of the pocket/askew bottom/without touching any pocket walls,
and once the number is prounonced...it freelly drops inside/magnet off after numb.pron./
and that is a first hand fact.

Your the expert Flat, and i will be guided by you. This must be magnets in sectors? If the ball landed in 13, and the magnet was in 0, it wouldn't draw it round would it? 

There are enough legal advantages for the casino with airball, like no dealer wage, no pit boss, no dealer time delays sorting chips and payment, 80 spins per hour, 24/7, instead of 25 spins/hour on a busy night. More spins, more 2.7%


Some one here has an airball machine and said there were no magnets. So some don't?

Just trying to understand it

From what I read, airball is coded with air jet changes, rotor speed changes and generally have no signature due to an algorithm.


As for magnets and trickery, I don't think so.

Quote from: Garnabby on June 13, 2014, 04:44:48 PM
May I refer you back to that Keynes stuff by Bayes recently at Betforum?

You may, but its closed...lol.  I will take your referral when it goes live again.

I have studied singles and series from a probability point of view and they follow the same unpredictable varience that ec follows. Infact...they are the same.
As pointed out....20 chop is perfectly acceptable in a small sample but single hits will be close to series hits with much larger samples.
I don't see any reason for patterns forming mathematically....just in the mind.
No intentional putdown on the topic owner....just IMO

Nice video Xander. My bookshelf comprises mostly of this kind of subject matter (if you take all the chess books out)

Quote from: Blood Angel on June 12, 2014, 07:25:33 PM
Well I drew Japan to win the cup in the Sweep Stake at work

I did slightly better BA....I didn't go in a draw at work[smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley]

Not seen Sogget for ages Dr M.


Checked his posts and I think this was his last Oct 13

XXVV....respect for your carefully worded response. Thanks.


When the hackles rise....you have a problem. Its your problem. Its an intruder alarm.


Do you
a) call the Police and let them sort it out?
b) learn from the clever intruder, and make your house more secure!


I can't speak for Xander....and as for Peter Cook...I enjoyed his genius wit and intellect, not his sick twisted wish to destroy people..


Xander per se, isn't a teacher, everyone is. You are...my Mother is, the tramp shaking a cup at me is.


I am nothing without you all.

Agreed bally....we are running a score comp at work for the 48 group games...1 point for result, 3 points for actual score correct.


I didn't support Australia much....the odd draw....harry kewel....Viduka....even my tean Man City had Danny Tiatto


Flatino likes his footie....excited Flatman??

Xanders a cool guy ...I've found him very helpful.  Just isn't keen on wishy washy flannel. Me too.


XXVV, you have to get over this snobby "some non member is in my gentleman's club" BS.


Its like you don't understand forums.


Everyone is a teacher. Only others truly see you as you are. Self analysis is disastrous.


When your faults are pointed out...it's a gift.


We need to work on ways to beat roulette. Xander can certainly help with that.



End of sermon

Sputnik.....you are correct. Its not been brought down or banned in some magnificent act of retribution. 
Steph is moving house.

There's a cool guy ensuring you follow procedures at the end when you are full of adrenalin.
Looks weird coming from England but come across as well organised....and great fun.