Oh, I see! You're one of those that feel that all of the experts are wrong or part of a vast conspiracy to spread lies.  Ok. 


De Nile is the longest river in the world. 

Turner,

Yes, I soemtmies expeirnece the FFS (FAT FINGER SYNDROM) as well.

QuoteI would do this:  I would wait for a number to sleep X number of times and then use it for the sought-after number.  While some may disagree with this, I feel it is indisputable fact:  When something does not happen, it move one spin closer to happening.  Example:  We know the zero will eventually hit.  If it did not hit this spin, it is one spin closer to hitting.  So why not move a tad closer??-Twocat

FACT: You've fallen prey to the Monte Carlo Fallacy.   Furthermore, playing the coldest numbers/sleepers on a live wheel is one way that you could actually manage to LOSE at a rate that exceeds the house edge in the long run.  The reason is that you could actually be playing on the "negatively biased numbers".  (Meaning numbers that don't hit as often as they should because mechanical problems with the gaming device.)
If you add a bot, then you can lose more efficiently, even when you don't have the time to play. -BAD IDEA


The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due. This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages. -Source below

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gambler_s_fallacy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy


http://www.skepdic.com/gamblers.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8SkCh-n4rw







-Xander

QuoteBayes..you can't you take spins from a database of 10000 random.org or casino spins instead of an RNG-Turner

@ Turner,

Why not?

@ Alababa,

Bayes and Pockets have you in checkmate.  Your bloviating isn't helping.


-Xander

Simulation on their own, aren't really proof of anything.  There has to be a logical reason as to why a method/system can work. 

QuoteMy lord. I would like to politely point that Albalaha is not answering my questions directly. I have been asking that for ages. I would also like to politely point that he is keeping on making claims without proof-Pockets

In short, most people believe that he's bloviating.

QuoteBayes, if it is the sole condition to prove a grail, I have 12 grails so far, at least  that has done such things or better. Was MBB's private testing results better than this :-Alababa

Alababa,

Here's why nobody is taking you serious.  You don't post any math or descriptions that describe why your system could possibly be mathematically sound.    Testimonials about past performance are meaningless, if you can't describe why your bets should perform better than expectation. 



-Xander

Bayes,


Mathematically, why should the system have worked in the first place?  How many bets were placed during the test?

QuoteNot what I meant. How many of the posts on THIS thread will HELP you at the CASINO?-Mr. J.

Very few. 

The most successful gambler's rely on the small stuff in order to get the edge.

@Bayes,

Excel's pseudorandom generator 2007 version was flawed.  If you were using this generator for the test trial, then it could be the reason for the false positive in Marshall Bing's Test.  Try using random.org.  If it's just another outside betting system, then I wouldn't waste my time testing it.

@ Turner,

Obviously a live wheel isn't set to payback at a rate that exceeds expectation.  The Dublin live feed should be fine for system testing.  My reference was to the RNG function games available in some online casinos. 

@ Flatino,

You can't win in the long run by betting on so many numbers.  19 to 22 numbers is far too many.  You need to slim that down to only a five or seven number arc at most.  Furthermore, an online wheel isn't going to work, since most of them are using RRS wheels.

When I looked at your data, the DS looked quite random.  I could find no reason for it to work.  I even compared similar spin directions at various frequencies. 

-Xander.

Playing 18 numbers via dealer's signature, on a wheel that alternates directions each spin, while not accounting for the change in direction? 

I doubt it.  18 numbers is too many. It's unlikely that your edge would be high enough to enable such a wide betting arc.


Besides, last I heard Dublinbet was using a wheel with an RRS system (RRS stands for random rotor speed.  On some spins it speeds up.  On some spins it slows down.)

The attachment is a standard deviation graph showing the consistency of the DS for the first 5k spins of your samples.  In short, it doesn't look good.

Which numbers are in each sector?

For example, sector 1?  Is number one in sector one?

Flatino,

Regarding your spreadsheets:

What do columns d and m represent?

You guys do know that playing in FREE MODE isn't the same thing as playing for real money, right?



Free mode is often set as a positive expectation game.  It's just like many of the free slot machine downloads available online or on your droid/Iphone.  Playing free mode isn't the same as the live game.


@Flatino,

What are your attachments supposed to represent?  Proof?