### Author Topic: The Sequence Master  (Read 9552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### The Sequence Master
« on: May 13, 2015, 10:34:16 PM »
If you are fond of the straight up bets,betting single numbers could be very awarding.
I have a few things to mention regarding my personal observations of the game.
First,did you know that a probability of 66.66% is on YOUR side for a number to hit at least once within 36 spins?
66.66% is much more than 48.65% of the EC bets
Another reason which is better than betting EC's is because you could win up to 35 units from a single bet, on the other hand EC's give you a measly 1 unit when you win.
Thus the payouts are much better,but also the probability,you have every reason to bet this way and after all you are risking just 36 units,not too many in order to gain too little as you do for progressions on EC's!
Losing 36 units is the worst case scenario which happens approximately 33.33% of all times, but when progressions are losing,are losing much more than what they gained till that moment!
Now I'm going to share a method I'm using,I call it "copy paste"
Sit down at a table and write down every number you see,when you have 36 numbers written,start your betting sequence by placing 1 chip on the oldest number in your list,this is the number which you wrote first,then next bet is the second number on your list and so on...till you had 36 bets on single numbers.
From my experience the average is to hit 2 times within the 36 bets,average low is 1,average high is 3,minimum none and in rare occasions you may win 4 to 5 times within 36 bets.
You will win more than you lose,therefore a valid strategy with a positive expectation.
Optionally,if someone wants to extend his betting session after a losing round,he/she could bet another betting sequence of 36 spins,but this time with 2 units each time.
For even better betting selections,you have to think the following:
Approximately 24 numbers are hitting within 37 spins and 13 are sleepers,that's roughly one third of the total.
Same as the sleepers goes for our lives,one third of our lifetime we are sleeping.
Good night and sweet dreams!

#### Bayes

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2015, 10:33:50 AM »
First,did you know that a probability of 66.66% is on YOUR side for a number to hit at least once within 36 spins?
66.66% is much more than 48.65% of the EC bets

This is misleading because you're not comparing like with like. You should be comparing chances of at least one win in a "cycle" in both cases. Ignoring the zero, the cycle for a single number is 36 spins, and the cycle for an even chance is 2 spins. But the chance of at least one hit for an EC in 2 spins is 75%, not 50%. So in a cycle, the chance of at least one hit is actually better for the EC's.

Regarding your system of betting the same as the last 36 numbers one at a time and in the same order, you make a bold claim! how much have you tested it? I can't see any reason why it should give an advantage, except perhaps that you are betting numbers which have recently hit, which is probably better than choosing "colder" numbers.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2015, 01:13:46 PM »
Quote
This is misleading because you're not comparing like with like. You should be comparing chances of at least one win in a "cycle" in both cases. Ignoring the zero, the cycle for a single number is 36 spins, and the cycle for an even chance is 2 spins. But the chance of at least one hit for an EC in 2 spins is 75%, not 50%. So in a cycle, the chance of at least one hit is actually better for the EC's.

Regarding probability your statement is true but you forget something of paramount importance!
The payout for predicting 1 out of 2 EC bet is 0,you get nothing for predicting 1 out of 2.
On the other hand,by predicting 67 times out of 100 a single number with 35 to 1 payout,it would generate these kind of profits:
(1x35 + 1x34 + 2x33 + 2x32 + 2x31 + 2x30 + 2x29 + 2x28 + 2x27 + 2x26 + 2x25 + 2x24 + 2x23 + 2x22 + 2x21 + 2x20 + 2x19 + 2x18 + 2x17 + 2x16 + 2x15 + 2x14 + 2x13 + 2x12 + 2x11 + 2x10 + 2x9 + 2x8 + 2x7 + 2x6 + 2x5 + 2x4 + 2x3 + 1x2 + 1x1 + 1x0) = +1188
While losing 33x36 = -1188
Therefore 0 difference,not worst than your EC selection!

Quote
Regarding your system of betting the same as the last 36 numbers one at a time and in the same order, you make a bold claim! how much have you tested it? I can't see any reason why it should give an advantage, except perhaps that you are betting numbers which have recently hit, which is probably better than choosing "colder" numbers.

It's much better to bet this way because you'll never a find a board showing last 37 results like this:
4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4...
Thus if someone bets the same number all the time,sooner or later he is going to find that this number might be sleeper,by that time it would be late...
The betting selection I'm suggesting is closer to what really happens on each cycle.
There is another more accurate but more complicated way of selection method,but I'm not going to analyze it because I've received only negative comments so far,therefore it doesn't worth to explain you further my strategy.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 01:17:29 PM by BlueAngel »

#### Bayes

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2015, 01:59:10 PM »
Regarding probability your statement is true but you forget something of paramount importance!
The payout for predicting 1 out of 2 EC bet is 0,you get nothing for predicting 1 out of 2.

You said AT LEAST, meaning 1 or MORE wins.

In a cycle of singles

P(at least 1 hit)  = 1 - (36/37)37 = 63.37%

In a cycle of EC's

P(at least 1 hit) = 1 - (19/37)2 = 73.63%

True, you have the chance of multiple hits betting singles, but higher variance means higher losses as well as wins. Variance is a two-edged sword.

Quote
Thus if someone bets the same number all the time,sooner or later he is going to find that this number might be sleeper,by that time it would be late...
The betting selection I'm suggesting is closer to what really happens on each cycle.

The wheel has to match the exact number on the list, which changes every spin, that is not easier than matching one number bet continuously. The probabilities are the same.

Negative comments? the truth is just what it is.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2015, 02:17:40 PM »
While the odds are the way you describe,you forgot again the payouts,your 73.63% would return you 1 to 1,while the 63.37% has 35 to 1 payout,therefore 35 is 35 greater than 1 but 63.37% is not 35 times less than 73.63%

Quote
The wheel has to match the exact number on the list, which changes every spin, that is not easier than matching one number bet continuously. The probabilities are the same.

If probability is the same and exactly the  same pocket is again possible,then please answer why no one would ever see a sequence of 37 outcomes with 37 times the same pocket/number??!
In such theories it's possible,that's why this kind of theories are JUNK.
The independent results is worthless and meaningless theory if you ask me,that's why I evaluate more my empirical observations rather than theories which have been manifested by individuals without any grasp of reality,any practical experience.
Their only concern is to dictate to others their generic and highly impractical theories.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### becker

• New
• Posts: 29
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2015, 02:55:05 PM »
In such theories it's possible,that's why this kind of theories are JUNK.
The independent results is worthless and meaningless theory if you ask me,that's why I evaluate more my empirical observations rather than theories which have been manifested by individuals without any grasp of reality,any practical experience.

Well, from his posts it seems to me that Slacker can prove or disprove almost any practical experience in roulette much more measurably and verifiable then you, as it seems he knows how to do some software simulations. And a guy how can do ones, must have done them... So am I sure he tested all this you are trying to debate about, eventhough he doesnt need as his statistical knowledge isnt shallow at all.

But how can you except with your words?

« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 04:49:22 PM by becker »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2015, 08:18:49 PM »
In such theories it's possible,that's why this kind of theories are JUNK.
The independent results is worthless and meaningless theory if you ask me,that's why I evaluate more my empirical observations rather than theories which have been manifested by individuals without any grasp of reality,any practical experience.

Well, from his posts it seems to me that Slacker can prove or disprove almost any practical experience in roulette much more measurably and verifiable then you, as it seems he knows how to do some software simulations. And a guy how can do ones, must have done them... So am I sure he tested all this you are trying to debate about, eventhough he doesnt need as his statistical knowledge isnt shallow at all.

But how can you except with your words?

The reality is at the tables,not in simulations.
No matter how many trials you perform in your simulation,are few because there are literally infinite possibilities.
If you just change a position of a single digit,it's a different combination.
It's really strange for me that you find a meaningful purpose on such simulations instead of being part of the real action.
As Kav said "always I was wondering what would happen after quadrillions of results..."
And at the main site: "long term is bad for our business..."
No would ever live to see what you call long term,so instead of taking advantage of the variance in the short term,you are trying to "tame the storm"...

#### Reyth

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2015, 08:41:22 PM »
Every number has an expiration date and if only we could read them like items on the grocery shelf...

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2015, 09:22:14 PM »
Every number has an expiration date and if only we could read them like items on the grocery shelf...

Play with the variance,NOT against it.
Don't try to avoid losing,it's futile,but try maximize winning and minimize losing.

#### Bayes

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2015, 08:25:50 AM »
If probability is the same and exactly the  same pocket is again possible,then please answer why no one would ever see a sequence of 37 outcomes with 37 times the same pocket/number??!
In such theories it's possible,that's why this kind of theories are JUNK.
The independent results is worthless and meaningless theory if you ask me,that's why I evaluate more my empirical observations rather than theories which have been manifested by individuals without any grasp of reality,any practical experience.
Their only concern is to dictate to others their generic and highly impractical theories.

You don't see 37 hits on the same number because the probability is infinitesimal, but still not zero. The theory says it's possible, but possible could mean anything from "likely" to "rare" to "next to impossible". It's a matter of degree, but you are treating all these events as equally likely, just because they are all "possible".  On the basis that such an event is possible, according to the theory, you dismiss it as JUNK? in that case your statement at the beginning of this thread that

Quote
First,did you know that a probability of 66.66% is on YOUR side for a number to hit at least once within 36 spins?

must also be junk.

The statement of independence regarding roulette outcomes is not part of probability theory, so you can't trash the theory on that basis. Independence cannot be proved mathematically (although you can test for it), but in the case of roulette it's self-evident that outcomes are independent insofar as the same number of pockets are there from spin to spin, unlike in a deck of cards where cards removed could be left out, and obviously this changes the odds of the next card. But that doesn't mean to say that outcomes HAVE to be independent. Suppose that the wheel is rigged with magnets so that the ball is diverted away from pockets which have the most chips on them, in that case, outcomes are not independent.

There are statistical tests to determine whether outcomes are independent, but you would need to have a hypothesis with respect to some variable to detect it. In the rigged wheel scenario, if you suspect that outcomes are not independent, then the variable in question would have to be the money on the table, and where it was located, then you could test for independence using those parameters. Some other hypothesis and parameters might not show any dependence at all.

So the theory doesn't mean you can forget about common sense, intelligence, and imagination. It's not a substitute for those things at all, it's just a way of keeping your thinking logical and consistent. As Laplace said: "common sense reduced to calculation".

I've lost count of the number of times people have said "I'm never going to play 1000,000 spins, so simulation is useless". This misses the point completely. The point is to test the system for weaknesses. Would you buy a new car if you knew it hadn't been adequately tested? it's like saying, "what's the point of testing the car over a million miles, I'm never going to drive a million miles".
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 08:28:02 AM by Slacker »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### dobbelsteen

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2015, 08:58:40 AM »
BA the possibilities are not infinite.
An EC has two possibilities.
A dozen has 3 possibilities
A number has  37 possibilities
ETC,
The roulette has a infinite sequence. Inside the sequence there are infinite events. The very particular events are suitable for strategies and systems. Consecutive items are such events.

#### Reyth

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2015, 09:19:26 AM »
I like the idea of monitoring repeating sequences.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2015, 03:36:27 PM »
If probability is the same and exactly the  same pocket is again possible,then please answer why no one would ever see a sequence of 37 outcomes with 37 times the same pocket/number??!
In such theories it's possible,that's why this kind of theories are JUNK.
The independent results is worthless and meaningless theory if you ask me,that's why I evaluate more my empirical observations rather than theories which have been manifested by individuals without any grasp of reality,any practical experience.
Their only concern is to dictate to others their generic and highly impractical theories.
You don't see 37 hits on the same number because the probability is infinitesimal, but still not zero. The theory says it's possible, but possible could mean anything from "likely" to "rare" to "next to impossible". It's a matter of degree, but you are treating all these events as equally likely, just because they are all "possible".  On the basis that such an event is possible, according to the theory, you dismiss it as JUNK? in that case your statement at the beginning of this thread that

Quote
First,did you know that a probability of 66.66% is on YOUR side for a number to hit at least once within 36 spins?

must also be junk.

The statement of independence regarding roulette outcomes is not part of probability theory, so you can't trash the theory on that basis. Independence cannot be proved mathematically (although you can test for it), but in the case of roulette it's self-evident that outcomes are independent insofar as the same number of pockets are there from spin to spin, unlike in a deck of cards where cards removed could be left out, and obviously this changes the odds of the next card. But that doesn't mean to say that outcomes HAVE to be independent. Suppose that the wheel is rigged with magnets so that the ball is diverted away from pockets which have the most chips on them, in that case, outcomes are not independent.

There are statistical tests to determine whether outcomes are independent, but you would need to have a hypothesis with respect to some variable to detect it. In the rigged wheel scenario, if you suspect that outcomes are not independent, then the variable in question would have to be the money on the table, and where it was located, then you could test for independence using those parameters. Some other hypothesis and parameters might not show any dependence at all.

So the theory doesn't mean you can forget about common sense, intelligence, and imagination. It's not a substitute for those things at all, it's just a way of keeping your thinking logical and consistent. As Laplace said: "common sense reduced to calculation".

I've lost count of the number of times people have said "I'm never going to play 1000,000 spins, so simulation is useless". This misses the point completely. The point is to test the system for weaknesses. Would you buy a new car if you knew it hadn't been adequately tested? it's like saying, "what's the point of testing the car over a million miles, I'm never going to drive a million miles".

There is not absolute independence on the results because if there was,then this would contradict many statistics and probability,I think it's very obvious to understand that without any dependence to a certain degree,payouts wouldn't be possible to be determined by probability.
Therefore since there are certain payouts regarding their respective odds/probability,this means no independence but variance/deviation up to a certain degree.

#### Bayes

##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2015, 04:55:17 PM »

There is not absolute independence on the results because if there was,then this would contradict many statistics and probability

What do you mean by this? what statistics and probabilities are contradicted?

Of course, in a vague, airy-fairy, metaphysical kind of way, it's true that "everything is connected", but without being more specific, how does it help?

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1977
• Thanked: 357 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Sequence Master
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2015, 05:29:19 PM »

Perhaps is not so obvious as I thought,so I'm going to make it "quarters" for you.
Without any dependence,payouts wouldn't be possible to be determined by probability.

Therefore since there are certain payouts regarding their respective odds/probability,this means no independence but variance/deviation up to a certain degree.

For example if the casino says that an EC is paying 1 to 1 this comes from its respective probability to occur,therefore fixed payouts which is something very specific and not vague.

Another way to see this is to bet for only once an EC,this is only what you understand,the odds for a single bet/outcome which is 48.65% probable,but let's say I want to bet a parlay in order to win 5 consecutive times,would that be the same probability like betting only once on the same EC?
Of course not,the probability of winning (or losing) 5 consecutive times is much "thinner" than winning or losing only once!
If there was exactly the same probability for 1 and 5 consecutive wins or loses,then the casino would pay exactly the same money on both cases!

Still you are trying to understand??
I've never expected to explain so much about something so obvious!