One thing i can't get out of my head is that if you pick the last 6 numbers with no repeat, then you get one repeat with the next 6 numbers.
Also work with 5 numbers and the next 5 number window.

You track the numbers on a rolling basis where each window is 5 or 6 numbers.
+ sign is when you hit a repeat within next window of numbers.
- sign is when you miss a repeat within the next window of numbers.

+ + - + - + - + + + + - + - + - + + - + + + - - + - + - + + + - + - + +

Is there any way to take advantage out of this clustering appearances of repeats.

A question to ask.....was  the last 6 the key or were the repeats the key

Both:
One is that past results matters.
One is because they tend to repeat by nature.

Reason:
One reason is hot numbers or bias numbers or the tendency of fluctuation favoring certain numbers.
Numbers seems to come in clustering periodicity - waves - and the optimal window is 5 or 6 ...

A famous bias player claim that you can reduce the house edge playing the last 5.
He also claim that past numbers do matters.

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
One thing i can't get out of my head is that if you pick the last 6 numbers with no repeat, then you get one repeat with the next 6 numbers.

Sputnik,


How often does this happen when the last 6 numbers DO have a repeat? I think you'll find that you get the same percentage whether the last 6 numbers had a repeat or not.

I am not sure, but with simple observation you notice clustering periodicity.
You get repeats with in a window frame.

Can be 6/6 or 5/5 ...

I run 300 trails with random org and got the following results.
+ sign means you got a repeat for the next window of 5 attempts.
- sign means you did not get a repeat for the next window of 5 attempts.

+ + - + + - + + - - + + + + - + - + + + - + - + + - - + - - - +

19 windows where one repeat appear
13 windows where one repeat don't appear

@ Mike are you saying the windows even out in the long run.
I was thinking the state would be more common then the other ( periodicity ).

Assume you track a wheel collecting data, then this look like you would not lose your shirt or go home with empty wallet.

I've been playing with something very similar. If last 12 have 1 repeat...play last 12. On 2 repeats (a win) stop until 1 repeat. If the last 12 go unique ( no repeat) stop until 1 repeat.
Only play if last 12 has 1 repeat.
Its still in the "something I noticed" phase.

Nice Turner ... can you give some example ...
If i understood it correct you see 12 numbers with no repeat and then bet the following 12 ,,, is that correct ?

I wounder as this topic is about the "periodicity window" where repeats appears at most or most common.

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 02:00:22 PM

@ Mike are you saying the windows even out in the long run.

They should do, but I'll get back to you on that...

Quote from: Mike on November 21, 2013, 05:33:11 PM

They should do, but I'll get back to you on that...

Sound great.
Mr Ops site is gone now, but he did a test using the past 6 and got some surprising good results.
This was because a user tell him about it and that it was the only method he had some success with.
Then Mr Ops got curios and run some simulations.

Lets say i am not want to play this method to win money, i just want to break even and go home with my collected data.
So the main idea is to use a method where you can walk in and walk out with 300 trails collected data about the wheel.

Or a method where you have a entering point and one exit point.
The method using skips.

+ + - + + - + + - - + + + + - + - + + + - + - + + - - + - - - +

Lets assume i would play once after a loss up to two attempts and we can name it march 1.
Then the result would look like this W W LW W W W W LW LL

Lets assume i would play once after a win up to two attempts and we can name it march 2.
Then the result would look like this W W W W LW LW LW LL

Looks pretty much as even money for me or with this examples you would probably end up with profit.

Very interesting.

Thank you dear Patrik [smiley]gtalk/cooldircle.png[/smiley]

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 04:21:12 PM
Nice Turner ... can you give some example ...
If i understood it correct you see 12 numbers with no repeat and then bet the following 12 ,,, is that correct ?

I wounder as this topic is about the "periodicity window" where repeats appears at most or most common.

Sputnik


My observation is that the last 12 amount of repeats grow and fall. 0 repeats, 1,2,1,0


This "idea" is no good on its own.
its no good on its own because it's a 12 chip bet. Too much! (see Dozens or 2 lines or 4 street bets)


But...having observed this....and now reading this post, I would now try something like this


When the last 12 are unique, bet the last 6 numbers until the last 12 have 2 hits.
or, until the last 12 have 1 hit. or the last 11 unique, or last 10.


or bet last 5, or 4, or 7.


All ways around this basic observation until we have the best result.


If i am lucky, a good idea is somewhere in these combos.


Then hammer that idea for many spins


that's what I am trying.

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 07:45:07 AM
Reason:
One reason is hot numbers or bias numbers or the tendency of fluctuation favoring certain numbers.
Numbers seems to come in clustering periodicity - waves - and the optimal window is 5 or 6 ...

Are you talking about physical bias or probability?

It's a tendency to look at repeaters within a set of spins. 37 is popular for law of the third. The set can be any amount of spins long, it doesn't really matter. Mathematically, in a single dimension, a set or cycle of spins can only actually consist of one spin, but that's not the issue. A cycle of spins can be determined for convenience and help to establish benchmarks. In a set of 37 spins, the probability of repeat numbers obviously cascades from the top. Outcome one is most likely to repeat than any other, for example. This goes without saying.

It is difficult, though, to predict when. I'm not sure about your concept of "periodicity". When a number repeats should actually conform to probability. Example, outcome one has a 2.7% probability of repeating on spin 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc... Proving otherwise leads to the great of greats - a true mathematical edge. This is probably why most people fall down on playing repeat numbers. The triggers seem to lack logic.

There are also cutoffs throughout any cycle, which makes the bet selection complicated. For example there comes a time when, say, outcome 1 has a higher probability of hitting for a third time, than outcome 21 does for hitting a second time. This means it is sometimes better to play numbers further back in the cycle than, say, sticking to the last 5 or the last 12.