Roulette Forum
Roulette Forum => Roulette Strategy Discussion => Topic started by: Scarface on November 16, 2017, 11:26:38 PM

Are some bets worse than others? The house edge is the same for all bets, so in theory no bets can be worse on a fair wheel. It doesn't matter what system you play, all will have the same fate toward the house edge.
But is this true. Let's look at even bets. There are probably hundreds of different even bets that can be played...not just red/black, high/low, etc. You can play the last 18 numbers hit, or last 6 streets on the table, last 6 streets on the wheel. There are even progressions of adding numbers that qualify as even bets.
Has anyone tested anything like this before? Are there bets that are "better or worse" when it comes to variance?

The worst one I can think of... you arrive at the casino and then go up to the table with all of your money and put it on one bet. Win or lose its stupid in my opinion.

heatmap,
Mathematically it is not stupid.
Practically though it's a whole different discussion ;)
Scarface,
I asked a similar question here (https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1789.0)

Are there bets that are "better or worse" when it comes to variance?
The variance changes according to how many numbers you bet.
Var = n * p * q (p = probability of win, q = probability of loss, n = number of trials).
You can find the turning point by calculus. Because q = 1  p the variance is Var = n * p * (1  p) = n * p  n * p^2
The variance curve for a binomial distribution is a quadratic with the minimum at the bottom.
To find the min value of p set the derivative of p to zero. n is a constant so is taken outside the differential operator
n * dVar/dp = n * d (p  p^2)/dp = 12*p
set equal to 0 and solve for p
12*p = 0
p = 1/2 , so the bet which has the minimum variance is the even chance.

HE is a myth .HE calculates the loss of 2,7% only in the long run. Short run events have no HE. The result is unpredictable. There is also a Expected Value. Most players do not know the difference between EV and HE.

Great post Mccoy!
Now, how do we add profit generated into the equation because that is part of the picture too?

Let's look at 2 different strategies. Player 1 plays 4 numbers based on the last 4 numbers that have repeated. Player 2 will always play 4 numbers that haven't hit the longest. Both players 4 number bet will constantly change throughout the game. But player 1 will always be playing the most recent hot numbers, while player 2 will constantly be chasing the 4 coldest numbers. Wouldn't player 1 have a more superior bet selection?
4 cold numbers can go 100+ spins without hitting once. Can playing the 4 most recent repeats go that many spins with a no hit as often?
Player 1 will also see more streaks of wins than player 2.

How many times would 4 numbers have to wink out to ruin Player 1?

How many times would 4 numbers have to wink out to ruin you?
Depends on bankroll and progression. Just more curious on which strategy is more stable. Hard to believe that both strategies are equally bad. I would think the repeat strategy would have less variance. Doesn't necessarily have to have an edge...just less variance.
I'm more interested in the idea of is there really better bet selections than others. Can some selections be shown to be worse in the long run. If not, then there seems to be no point in having a strategy at all

It's brings up a simple qwestion : " how in this world do select your bets? "
If it's not obvious, then probably you do something wrong....

I would think the repeat strategy would have less variance. Doesn't necessarily have to have an edge...just less variance.
Rinad points out that if we can identify the hottest selections, we know that we aren't betting the coldest.
I'm more interested in the idea of is there really better bet selections than others. Can some selections be shown to be worse in the long run.
I truly believe, risking 100's of dollars, that roulette functions in this way; hot selections persist for a longer term than the shortterm fluctuations that every selection goes through.
The important thing to realize though, is that these hot selections do not always remain the hottest; roulette will EVENTUALLY correct the disparity. But how does it do it? With ANOTHER hottest selection!

The important thing to realize though, is that these hot selections do not always remain the hottest; roulette will EVENTUALLY correct the disparity. But how does it do it? With ANOTHER hottest selection!
Exactly! Always stay with the most recent hottest. Hot numbers can change, so you got to change with them. Sometimes, if playing 4 or 5 numbers, at least 1 of these will stay hot for 200 spins or more.

I wish it were that easy for me! :D
I know there are many people that do this easily, but I am unable. :'(
I have found that every selection will become hot at one point or another as part of its natural cycle and I have not found a way to look at these cycles with a shortterm view and be able to tell the difference between a shortterm cycle and one that will extend for 100's or even 1000's of spins; in other words, I don't know how to track the most recent spins reliably.
Furthermore, I have not found a way (yet?) to determine when a hot selection is going to gap (it WILL!).
I have a certain "weakness" in roulette where I don't do well with existing losses on the books on a regular basis and I am not good at thinkingacting creatively. :(

I have found that variance can be reduced, whatever the bet, by using techniques from machine learning.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/18891/baggingboostingandstackinginmachinelearning (https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/18891/baggingboostingandstackinginmachinelearning)
Combining different models (bet selections) in these ways results in less 'noise' and better predictions. I have already outlined a very simple way to do this in another thread, but it can be improved considerably. It does involve quite a lot of work though and can't be used in bricks and mortar casinos for obvious reasons.

From my point of view there is no difference between 4 random numbers or particular 4 numbers. A 4 number bet has a very large DTOP. That means that every result is possible. Sometimes is player 1 in profit and the other time player 2.
The only way to proof it ,is long term simulation. The short term result can be influenced by the kind of progression positive or negative.
The examples are not strategies but systems. Feelings are danger to draw conclusions. Research gives the answer!!!!

That's how I do it Dobble, longterm testing on certain criteria to generate a "confidence level". :)
In mathematics, a combination is a selection of items from a collection, such that (unlike permutations) the order of selection does not matter. For example, given three fruits, say an apple, an orange and a pear, there are three combinations of two that can be drawn from this set: an apple and a pear; an apple and an orange; or a pear and an orange. More formally, a kcombination of a set S is a subset of k distinct elements of S. If the set has n elements, the number of kcombinations is equal to the binomial coefficient
@Mccoy: You can do the above with roulette sequences?

Not sure I understand what you mean Reyth. Where did your quote come from and what does it have to do with my previous post?

Bagging (stands for Bootstrap Aggregating) is a way to decrease the variance of your prediction by generating additional data for training from your original dataset using combinations with repetitions to produce multisets of the same cardinality/size as your original data.
The above quote comes from the site you linked and resonates with the way I see roulette. The quote I referenced comes from the link in the above quote, which is to a Wikipedia article about Combinations in statistics.
I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this to a roulette sequence of say, 16M spins. :o

And what is a point to such " boots trap " ? What's being tested?

I was going to ask a similar question. I just realized when reading further that the purpose of "reducing variance" is to obtain a more "solid" statistical model and so it doesn't ACTUALLY reduce variance it just "averages" it so statisticians can study the "normal data"?
So if that is true, we still have to analyze and deal with the variance because we can't make the wheel "bootstrap itself"?
The way I look at roulette now, we actually WANT the variance so we can profit from it!?
1) Hot numbers is POSITIVE variance (but I have not found how to predict this [yet?])
2) Gapping is NEGATIVE variance that can be observed and acted upon for profit
So instead of reducing variance we want to study and quantify it!?
I mean granted in a perfect (not you Mr. Perfect! XD) world according to our desires, we would all love our selection to have reduced variance so we would always win without worry or effort but I don't think that is a practical goal??

Reyth you're right that the purpose of reducing variance is to obtain a better statistical model but this in turn will result in an algorithm which makes better predictions, resulting in fewer losing bets.
The way I look at roulette now, we actually WANT the variance so we can profit from it!?
1) Hot numbers is POSITIVE variance (but I have not found how to predict this
You could try using some of the ML (machine learning) algorithms given in this pdf. ML is not an easy subject to learn because of the higher maths involved, but this is a nice step by step guide which gives the basic theory and examples and only assumes minimal maths. If you can code you should have no trouble writing the algorithms in any programming language or excel.
The 2 'ensemble' methods given at the end are ways of 'boosting' performance but you need to learn the basics first.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv5fK_kcvXAhXiK8AKHcDOAYcQFggrMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbookshelflab.com%2Fuploads%2F%3Ffilename%3D%252Fvar%252Fwww%252Fthebookshelf%252Fthebookshelf%252Fuploads%252FMaster_Machine_Learning_Algorithms.pdf&usg=AOvVaw11mD9pfXXx4XzGskRlnswD
Another good book for beginners is this one which is available cheaply on kindle
https://www.amazon.co.uk/NumsenseDataScienceLaymanAdded/dp/9811110689

It's all pointless. What is a point to bother with all of this? Fancy words?
Model is physical, stats or uplied stats are used to create and refine this model. Physics come first, stats second.
You guys do not dry rope before washing , right?

@Reyth. A long run test for a 4 number bet is likely more than 100k spins.

1. In terms of the representation used by the algorithm (the actual numbers stored in a file).
2. In terms of the abstract repeatable procedures used by the algorithm to learn a model from data and later to make predictions with the model.
3. With clear worked examples showing exactly how real numbers plug into the equations and what numbers to expect as output.
This approach doesn't sound useless to me. I don't think the Physics of Statistics^{TM} is useless either. Probability is useful and the HE is miniscule, overrated and only used as an excuse not to investigate Random Bias^{TM} and to berate system players! :P
If players would have put as much effort into investigating the Physics of Statistics as they do quoting the miniscule and insignificant HE to system players, they already would have understood about Random Bias^{TM}!
Ya I am on page 8 and I am already starting to formulate the beginnings of my f(InputVector)! :D
I want to learn 3 things:
1) When does a hot streak start
2) When does a hot streak end
3) When does the first substantial gap occur
#3 is the most important. So, Instance #1 is GAP >= 27 and the input variables is the most difficult and important part:
a) HS Ratio (hits to spins)
b) Previous gap (<=26) history
c) Current streak (hits within the selection)
d) Current gapping (within the selection)
e) Number of current coups
f) NSP (number of total spins as a sum aggregate since a hit has been obtained by each number)
g) [Relevant data from all the other selections] <=== very large & detailed
PREDICTION can equal GAP LIKELIHOOD expressed as a percentage?
Obviously we want nonparametric algorithms. ;)
This is a GREAT book! Thanks for sharing it!! :D

And what types of algorithms you have been using up till now?
Loosely translation of term " non parametric algorithm " would be " have no idea what lm doing or gonna do next"....
Past data is just past data. Need to model and look how current data fits your model. It's simply imposible with non parametric algorithms.
Fancy words ;).

Up till now I have been simply coding by the seat of my pants! ;D
At this point though, I have a large set of data to analyze with many attributes and so if I can get the computer to analyze them for me and tell me what causes PLE's without me having to manually sort through millions of loss events, I think that's helpful! :*
Its nonparametric because I don't know what attribute configurations cause loss events but I have alot of data that can be analyzed to see if there is a correlation between any of the data and the loss events; i.e. f(cause).
And if you try and tell me there is no f(cause) in random data, I will refer you back to the first part of my last post!

It's all pointless. What is a point to bother with all of this? Fancy words?
Model is physical, stats or uplied stats are used to create and refine this model. Physics come first, stats second.
You guys do not dry rope before washing , right?
You can use physical parameters or a physical model just as easily as 'statistical' parameters with any of these algorithms, so it's not pointless. And what you're saying is that the stats don't reflect anything happening 'physically' at all which makes no sense. If that were true it wouldn't be possible to identify biased wheels purely by recording spins.
Reyth, remember 'Garbage in, Garbage out'. I don't think there's much point in using the algos over millions of spins because the only thing you will 'predict' is what the law of large numbers and basic probability tells you, and it's unlikely that using an algo on one sequence of 'raw' spins will work either because of the randomness. My approach is to create a diverse set of bet selections for a number or group of numbers, generate the sequence of wins and losses for each and then use one of the ensemble algorithms on the whole set. From this you will get a sequence of predictions which will show lower variance than any one of the bet selections used on its own. All machine learning algorithms are basically trying to fit a line to data and the main problem is 'overfitting' which means that the line doesn't generalise well to new data. This raises the variance, and is what the ensemble algorithms are designed to reduce.
Jason also has a blog which covers all aspects of Machine Learning for beginners. The emphasis is practical not theoretical. It's a good starting point for anyone who wants to get into the subject, which is vast. https://machinelearningmastery.com/ (https://machinelearningmastery.com/)

Please can anyone explain physical parameters and physical model in relation with a random number event. My dixtionary give me no answer.

Guys, really...
If you stop to confuse spins with past numbers, half of your problems will be resolved by itself. Numbers are result of spins, not vice versa!!! Spins are spins, numbers are numbers, no need to mix beefsteak and fly, these has nothing to do with each other.
Spins are procceses.. things are spinning ( ball/ wheel), ball is jumping... things going on.
Numbers are just numbers, when ball is in the number , nothing is going on.
With spins we can judge likehood of resulting numbers, create a model, forcast, make rergessinons, test variables, create hypothesis. ... ets.
What can we do with numbers? We can count them , yes. But can we predict ( forcast) ? What should we base our forcast upon, how reliable it is?
It doesn't make any difference in roulette , what numbers was results on previous trials, there is absolutely no reason to belive that numbers that fall before, will continue to fall because of past results.
Spins we can measure ( direction, velocities, distances, timings, ball behaviours. ..ets)... but what is there to measure or model on past numbers?????

Please can anyone explain physical parameters and physical model in relation with a random number event. My dixtionary give me no answer.
As I understand it a physical model is created only from physical parameters relating to the spin, such as direction, distances, timings etc. The AP view is that *only* these parameters or observations can have a bearing on the outcome of the next spin. I disagree. :)

Guys, really...
If you stop to confuse spins with past numbers, half of your problems will be resolved by itself. Numbers are result of spins, not vice versa!!!
Spins we can measure ( direction, velocities, distances, timings, ball behaviours. ..ets)... but what is there to measure or model on past numbers? ??? ?
Mr Perfect you didn't reply to my comment that there must be a connection between past numbers and spin characteristics otherwise it wouldn't be possible to identify bias merely from past numbers. The relationship is undeniable. My contention is that this connection can be explored further by a deeper statistical analysis of past spins. The received dogma that past numbers cannot be any guide to future numbers makes no sense. Even in an RNG where there are no physical parameters the outcomes are predicable up to a point when you look at the long term statistics. If this were not so the casinos would not be able to set their odds. My project is about trying to find out whether it's possible to extract more data from past spins in the short term which will enable the same kind of prediction which is possible in the long term. There are various ways of going about this and machine learning algorithms can help. I know you have an agenda here with your VB course and trying to recruit people to your team and that's fine by me, but let's agree to disagree eh? Just leave those who want to explore other ways to their 'fallacies'. :)

McCoy... let people to their fallacies is fine by me.. BUT... THERE IS A REASON I CAN'T AGREE even to desagre. Sry for that.
Reason is simple: practicability and common logic.
Past numbers show what was there, it can help identify bias.. that's OK.
Does it help to earn money??? Not really.
Future results do not depend on past result. Stating otherwise is simply a fallacy.
Numbers are results of spins . Not vice versa.
One thing if you do exploratory analysis to determine if something going on... then numbers can help. But if you are going to " predict "( forcast)... it's all another story.
Roulette results do display very strong ( undeniable ) cause effect relationship. It doesn't mean that past numbers do predict future ones, but past spins can place a fondation to predict future results.
Numbers do not depend on other numbers, it's a system with many degrees of freedom. Freedom of system is large enough to water down any posible relationships between numbers on long run. Not so large to make spin data random.... that's facts.
I just speak what l see... and l sou enough to start generalising. What l say can be backed up by data stadies on real cases out there.
For me ,personally, do not really matter if you agree with me or not, if you are serious about this game in particular, you will arrive to same conclusions sooner or later. Every body does...
AP is result of nessesity, when people fed up of loosing , that's a way to go.
Good vb player is rarity... probably both of your palms have enough fingers to count all of us worldwide. Population is 7 billion!!!! Do not take it lightly... it takes a bit more then people think in general ...

Mr Perfect still no answer to why it's possible to find a biased wheel using only past numbers if they have no connection to future outcomes? That's common logic too you know. ;)
Does it help to earn money??? Not really.
What you mean is *you* haven't found a way to do it.
What l say can be backed up by data stadies on real cases out there.
I'm not disputing the fact that AP works, only that it's the *only* way. You can't back up the view that there is no way to make use of past numbers, only that you haven't been able to do it successfully, that's a big difference.
For me ,personally, do not really matter if you agree with me or not, if you are serious about this game in particular, you will arrive to same conclusions sooner or later. Every body does...
Same here. I don't mind whether you agree with me or not. "Everybody does"? Yes maybe everybody who hasn't found a way to use past numbers effectively, and those who claim they have *must* be mistaken or lying. ::)

I disagree that millions of trials dilutes the statistical picture, instead it enhances it (for me).
I am not trying to make predictions from shortterm spin sequences but instead statistically accurate predictions regarding certain statistical criteria in relation to certain statistical events. Those events will be isolated within the whole sequence and the more of them I have, the more accurate my data will be.
Regardless, GIGO still applies, as stated in the book.

McCoy ...
Do you have a way to show that what you tolk about even exist?
Just to remind. ..
1. lm the only guy here who actually show on real data how to use past numbers to develop a model for betting( suxsessfull)
2. I'm the only one here who showed that triggers matter and really make a difference.
No one before and no one after .. just me, unfortunately.... l really wish it would be other way, but reality is harsh.
What all of system players tolk, l DO. On daily basis.
So if you, personally, found something , that you ,personally, belive is worth to present on this forum, l sudjest you post it to back up your clames, just posting words or wishful thinking doesn't do the job, sry if it affects you.
Just for your information.... final numbers itself is not a criteria to find bias wheels. They are found long before any numbers are taken into the account. Numbers are most not important info of all... there are people who do not even bother to take them, and they make money....
@ Reyth... stats model show what was going on, not what will be. You can't come back in time, can you???
What allow forcast is physical model. That is adjustable... stats model is not adjustable... and things are changing. So what you want??? Make money on paper or real life? Past or future? Where your monetary objectives reside?
It sims that folks do never play.. just post.

I understand. The real roulette is like an engine. Where the ball will land is dependable on The next physical parameters; the velocity of the ball and the wheel the slow down of the velocity, the ball friction, the humidity of the air, the specific gravity, the place on earth, the temperature and perhaps many more. All these parameters are not constant. The pocket where the ball will land is unpredictable. This is the reason why the outcome is a random pocket ( number).

Mr. Perfect you keep asking the same question and we keep telling you the same answer:
We use the Physics of Statistics.
I personally use probability to find bets that are more likely to succeed and all successful system players do the same.

Dobbelsteen, mostly you are right...
For the reasons you mentioned thing becomes predictable. Not on every spin, but in general, definitely yes.
@ Reyth, " physics of stats".. or whatever it means...
Instead l would prefer you guys to use "stats of physics"... so you get results that are logical, reliable, can be reproduced , modeled and used on other wheels as a reference.
Physics comes first... action happens on the wheel, not in your simulation program. It brings money... and money is good, right?
I want you guys make a lot of money for yourself, a bit for me and help to work towards encreasing understanding of situations faced by players out there. What is an idea of " physics of stats "? Multiply fallacy? It's already a lot...

Your method is more reliable, there is no doubt of this but its not the only possible way.
Gapping is the most reliable example (the only one) that I have found so far that stands up to millions of trials and does not deviate (its not just variance).

Stats are good... but it's just a tool.
Gapping does stay there.. but wich numbers gonna gap?
We are not there for millions spins either... at least me! No patience to play for so long.
It's not about what is better, just what can be used. You yourself say that you wanna know when steak start and when it ends... we all want it. But these who use physics do it during the spin, not after few past results. Even like that it's not easy to win.... imagine if you are few spins behind in your decisions.
Recearch is always good... as long as you like what you do, by any means, continue to do it.
I'm here not criticise, just to help if posible. ;)

For now I have given up on predicting hot streaks (beginning or end) but as I have been discussing here, I have some testing that I would like to do on it.
Right now my priority is on gaps and finding additional ways to analyze the probabilities.
There are times when one selection is less likely to gap than any other (or at least the vast majority of the other selections). There are also internal gap statistics that apply to the selection alone, regardless of the state of the board.

Reyth, l already told you to add me in Skype, if you wish.
If you had done this already, what you say ( gaps) would be a bit clear for you :).

I am doing some intense training at work and am not currently available to Skype, sorry.

So if you, personally, found something , that you ,personally, belive is worth to present on this forum, l sudjest you post it to back up your clames, just posting words or wishful thinking doesn't do the job, sry if it affects you.
Like you have you mean? ::)
If I do decide to post a full system with all details I'll do so, and unlike you I won't be charging for it. This is a discussion forum Mr Perfect and nobody is obligated to prove anything. It's a place for sharing ideas not a platform for pushing your agenda or advertising.
It sims that folks do never play.. just post.
You have no idea how much anyone plays, and this is a discussion forum in case you hadn't noticed.
Just for your information.... final numbers itself is not a criteria to find bias wheels. They are found long before any numbers are taken into the account.
This is not so. You can find a biased wheel using only past numbers even if there are more efficient ways to do it.

McCoy,
1. It's a platform to push my agenda and advertising. I asked permission from forum owners and moderators when l came here to do so.
My agenda is simple: look for useful people, who could be trained and teached to make money for themselves and for me a bit. Is it clear?
2. I do have an idea how much anyone play. It's very easy to see from what people post. I already faced almoust all posibe errors player can make in this game myself, l been there, you know... red all books, red all forums, traced almost every idea possible to its origin and logic behind, tested and retested, upplied over and over in real play and simulations.
3. Numbers only for finding bias wheels is not effective. Posible well yes, practical. ... well :) .
Casinos look numbers as well, you know. When it's obvious to you, it's long ego obvious to them as well ( first). They look other things besides numbers...
Player , to be effective, has to achieve level of understanding higher then casino. It's simply not your case, Bro. At least for now. I hope it will change and you will become useful for yourself as a player ( and for me as well).
There is " in books and forums" roulette "theorium" and there is a real play . When people cross this " line"... this is where real adventure starts.
I just offer " walk thru the line".... Bro, like Morfius from matrix... red or blue. I happened to jump it myself and really want some few more to jump it ;) . It's not easy here , on another side... some help is needed. Are you the one?

McCoy,
1. It's a platform to push my agenda and advertising. I asked permission from forum owners and moderators when l came here to do so.
But to keep posting the same old 'it won't work' is irritating and pointless. If someone is wrong according to your view there's no need to keep telling them, to do that doesn't make you right it just makes you a troll. And you can't possibly have tried *everything*, you have just decided that systems don't work. I will never be a convert to your way of playing because it depends on the characteristics of a particular wheel, and also you need to have access to bricks and mortar casinos which I don't. Sorry if that bothers you. VB doesn't work online. I'm looking for a way to play which doesn't depend on particular wheels and conditions and if you think that's a fallacy then so be it, but please don't keep telling me over and over, right?

McCoy, if your vb doesn't work online, it's just show what kind of vb player you are, nothing else.
Since when posting truth is "trolling"? I stand for every of my words. All of them are " crafted on stone".
I use "systems" and " strategies" on the go. I invent and reinvent them using avaliable information to me at the time of play. Why would l say it doesn't work? In fact you are one who says that, it doesn't work for you... and it's normal... everything goes as expected.
I do not expect you to win before understanding this game, no one does, especially casinos. Nothing for you to freak about.
You clamed to be a sports player for many years before coming to forum... somehow l get feeling that sports betting got the "best" out of you. I know suxsessfull sport betting players, one of them running account of mine copying his Betts in exchange of him jumping on my Betts ones a week on roulette. They get very different attitude then yours.. very calm and focused folks. There is lots to learn from them, lots on offer, bro!!! Speak with one is like drink pure water ;). It's not to put you down, don't take it personally.

In fact you are one who says that, it doesn't work for you... and it's normal... everything goes as expected.
No online casino will allow the conditions which make VB successful, if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.
You have a habit of putting words in my mouth and then criticizing them, so you're just having an argument with yourself, but whatever makes you happy I guess. Keep congratulating yourself on how smart you are and patronize other members.
I have been a successful sports bettor for years, believe it or not. This is just a hobby for me, an interesting challenge. I don't *need* to make money at it.
Just don't respond to any of my posts and I won't respond to any of yours, that way we'll get on fine. :)

McCoy... l already posted on this very forum results and screenshots of such results about my explorations of online play. My vb is just vb, it works everywhere.. online or b&m.
As l told you... if it doesn't work for you.. it's your limitations, nor mine. If it works or not, you are better to understand why, as long as you wanna pretend to call yourself as a " player". If not, it's just gambling... not problem to be there as well... as long as you call things by its own name. Player and gambler are 2 different entities and shoud be differenciated.
I generally do not take seriously these who do not want money from games. These are loosers. If you do not see money , you are not a player. I'm in the games for money, there is no other objective for me in it.
With last post you did " qualify " yourself.... here you " go"....

As l told you... if it doesn't work for you.. it's your limitations, nor mine.
I could say the same to you regarding systems. And no matter how good a VB system is it won't work if you can't get a good view of the wheel or if no more bets is called too early. This rules out the vast majority of online roulette. I'm sure you'll disagree though, if only because that's what prospective customers want to hear.
I generally do not take seriously these who do not want money from games. These are loosers.
There you go again misrepresenting what I actually wrote. I said I don't *need* to make money, not I don't *want* to. But that suits me fine if you think I shouldn't be taken seriously. Just ignore me. :)
Now go ahead and have the last word because it seems to be important to you.

McCoy, if you want money out of damn thing, then you are " potential costumer". And it is definitely not " last word" of mine, but beginning of productive cowork.
Systems are as good as wheels they have been designed upon. They are upplicable there or on very similar situations...
I already told you: " do not take it personally "... it's not what lm after.
I'm after people who is genuinely want to suxseed, if it's you, you will earn much more then l charge for education. I charge to motivate, not to earn. One proper player brings me much more then his education or tools costs. It's just " time wasters" that limit my free time , and these l try to avoid with all means l can employ.
Sencerelly available to help... Sergiy. ;).

I thought this thread was about some wagers on roulette being worse than others? OK then.
The worst bets on roulette are any progressive EC's.
Why? Let's say you wager one unit on an EC,
It loses, so you double it to recover your stake.
Classic MARTINGALE opener.
Should it not "HIT" within 10 spins, your next committed wager, to recover is 1024 units, and WHOOPEE, you are back in front, BY ONE UNIT!
The run against your prediction may be less, but it could be horrendous if the wheel does not "LIKE" you.
This follows the adage of roulette, (the more you wager, the less you win!).
Personally, I prefer the other end of the scale, as few numbers as possible, let's say three, en plain. Flat wagers.That's 11 to 1 fixed odds.
This approach suits me and I only have to "HIT" three times out of 36 to break even.
Economies of scale (and expectation) should always be taken into consideration.

I totally agree Fyo! The IDG says the exact same thing!
I know what Kav will say and its along the lines of the fact that EC's aren't worse than streets but different and thus require a different approach to compensate for the lack of payout.
So its kinda like, "What's best for us and our methods?" and "What do we like the best?" and then we tailor our method around what we like. :)
If it was up to me I would only play a single number or a split exclusively but what is holding me back is the additional cost! But that's me and my method, right? :D

Hi Reyth, i am with you there, I prefer ideally to play a single number, because the satisfaction of the ultimate return/prediction value goes from grim to gold in a flash!
BTW, I would only play a split/cheval if the two numbers were either side of my targeted single.
E.G., Target 26, (03 split), 7, and etc.

Aha, you use a wheel based approach. I guess that makes sense for a B&M player seeing as how AP is real and everything. :)
I personally treat the felt as the wheel (but I still have to remember the felt doesn't spin! XD) since I only play RNG. :)
Were I to play a split BOTH numbers would be my target and their behavior (along with the other splits) would be my triggers. :)
I could use the wheel in an RNG but I will lose the payout advantages of the felted bets (and for me this will also mean a higher cost). :(
Soo, two different worlds eh?
One thing I know is true though, is that the same statistical patterns that apply to the felt ALSO apply to the wheel and its sectors; i.e. pure statistics, no AP info considered.
So if I was to play only S/U bets I could use "wheel" statistics AND felt statistics simultaneously and would encounter a certain "merging" of the two, which is a pretty interesting concept!
Bayes talked about how his favorite method included multiple perspectives all pointing to the same result, as working better for him. :)

Yes a galaxy of different worlds, a plethora of possibilies, a quantum of quotes and as many methods of play as there are imaginations.
Great to find some examples of them here!

Wager on one , two or three numbers has a very large DTOP. Loss and win fluctuate and the result is unpredictable. It is nearly impossible to develop a strategy.
The best way is to simulate a large event. 1000 spins is not enough to draw conclusions. The gabs between hits can be very large . Such manner of playing is very dull.On this forum you can not find reports of this kind of wagering.
My report of the DS gab method on the blog says very much.
The 10 step Martingale is not so bad as you describe. The chance for a bust is very very very small. This is also caused by the small wager sessions of a player.
The trigger of a 10 step Martingale is important. See the discussions about SSB.

Mr Dobbelsteen, "two or three numbers has a very large DTOP"What exactly does that mean?
I am unfamiliar with some of your terms, re explaining your POV.
I have read very complex articles and strategy descriptions in these forums, and do not understand most of them, to be honest.
All I know, for sure, is that covering fewer numbers gives me the best possible return, the least stress, and a satisfactory outcome.
And Reyth, if you would like to play a single number or split exclusively, why don't you?
And how do you describe that as "additional cost"?
And a single wager "split"I could not do that.
I sort of understand you regarding the continuity sequence of the layout, as I regard the wheel (number) sequence, but, for me the wheel sequence allows a zone cover, similar to a nearneighbour wager on a "racetrack" layout.
The only way to secure a "splits" wager, is to fill in and cover the intervening number.
There are only three positions on the wheel where that happens naturally, and nowhere on the layout.
Like watching a real horse race, but with roulette there is only one "horse" to watch.
Even though we all know it will win, the question is, did you/me/we/everyone/anyone back it to win?
Mr Dobbelsteen is correct when he says there are an infinite number of systems for roulette, and, in my opinion there could be more than that (I know around one hundred), but I find the simplest solutions to be the most effective.

So what's the consensus here? Is playing 30 numbers just as good as playing 4 numbers? Are "cold numbers just as effective as "hot" numbers? My intuition tells me a small amount of hot numbers, or recent repeaters, will be a superior bet. I guess it comes down to personal preference if all bets are equal.

"All I know, for sure, is that covering fewer numbers gives me the best possible return, the least stress, and a satisfactory outcome" >> BINGO BANGO BABY!
100% correct. In addition, fewer numbers stretches out how long I play, adding on POINTS to my comp card.
Ken

there are infinite roulette systems. Beautiful and ugle, simple and complex.high risk and low risk , bad and good and many more. There are also 37 chances. All systems have a permanent loss after a number of spins. That point is where short run turns into long run. That point I have called the Dubbelsteen Turn Over Point. The DTOP depends on the largeness of the number bet. For large number bet wagers this point is easy to compute with a computer simulation program. For the 18 number bets (ECs)it is about 150 spins.
With this certainty smal number bets are played in the short run. Win and los fluctuate. The system player try to use the peaks and the valleys with a strategy and betting schemes.
There is an important difference between small and big number bets. On the long run both type of wagers will loss 2,7% of the total sum of the bets. That means that the big number bet player losses the most money.
Small number bet system are very dull
Only a strategy with a simple system and a careful betting scheme, experience and skill make a successful player.

There are "systems" with a positive expectation... no DTOP for these . It's dealer signature family systems. I developed 3 different of these, that in shell are all the same with minimal variations.
Problem of systems in general is inability of player to choose triggers and bet selections wisely.
For example, "red"  is not a bet selection... but distances between hit numbers or some other points into the spin may very well to be one. I say "may", because it's not always that straight forward.. quite often need to make adjustments based on knolidge we may aquire from proper study of the wheel and dealler/ ball.
Trigger for these systems is " consystency" of variables in place, consystency of expected results.
Someone who is well developed player , could tell that it's not a "system", but vb... well , he would be right. Don't wanna argue about that, l belive roulette player should use all information avaliable to him to place his bets.

MrP your approach of the roulettegame is from an other world then mine. You speak a total other language..
A system needs fixed rules. VB is not a system ,it is method based on experience and skill. Every time you throw sand in the discussion.
Describe a system with a positive expectation and make an Excel spread sheet.

It's not "sand" grains that lm " throwing" into discussion, these are diamonds ;). Unfortunately not everyone is qualified to recognise real value of information, that's why many people just passing by instead of picking these diamonds up.
I already did gave such an example and made a spreadsheet. . Ets. It can be found under " sequential ..." in system only part of forum.
Dobbelsteen, if someone does not work on his own understandING, it doesn't mean that information he is getting is incorrect, it's just mean that such an individual is unable to process it properly.

And Reyth, if you would like to play a single number or split exclusively, why don't you?
And how do you describe that as "additional cost"?
I play with the highest probabilty to hit that I can find practical. When moving inward on the felt, the cost to achieve this high probability becomes more and more expensive the farther I move in.
And a single wager "split"I could not do that.
I sort of understand you regarding the continuity sequence of the layout, as I regard the wheel (number) sequence, but, for me the wheel sequence allows a zone cover, similar to a nearneighbour wager on a "racetrack" layout.
The only way to secure a "splits" wager, is to fill in and cover the intervening number.
The felt has the same characteristics as the wheel (when no AP factors are considered). The entire wheel and felt (all selections) influence the behavior of any one selection and viceversa.
Like watching a real horse race, but with roulette there is only one "horse" to watch.
Even if I was playing a wheelbased system, I would be watching multiple horses. In an ideal race, I will watch as the wheel focuses in first on 34 of those horses and then provides 2 front runners. I will bet the current front runner as all the other horses fall steadily farther behind.
So what's the consensus here? Is playing 30 numbers just as good as playing 4 numbers? Are "cold numbers just as effective as "hot" numbers? My intuition tells me a small amount of hot numbers, or recent repeaters, will be a superior bet. I guess it comes down to personal preference if all bets are equal.
We have to broaden our view beyond our personal "comfort zone" to be able to conceptualize how sleepers and repeaters can be two sides of the same coin.
To give a general example, playing a larger number of sleepers can be found to perform similarly to a fewer number of repeaters. There is a tradeoff with cost:hit ratio but without making that mental adjustment, it wouldn't seem possible.
The main thing is that we all play in the way that we are most comfortable with. :)

I head into a Casino with the intention and expectation that my 4A will be successful.
I deliberately have no plan in mind beforehand.
All I expect to be provided with is a fair game of roulette.
The "bias" often referred to in these forums, is more likely an extension of "gamblers fallacy" than any physical alignment of a machined or engineered piece of expensive equipment.
Ball composition and density, predominant diamonds, scalloped, angled shallow or deep pockets, who cares?
And more to the point, what does anyone, as an invited player to an establishment of RaR expect to do about?
"Yes, certainly Sir, we will only use the 25mmTeflon ball, in conjunction with the deep pocket, 32inch Hustle Raptor, throwing the ball in a clockwise direction, at median velocity!"
"We hope that suits your absolutely amazing system, and wish you all the luck in the world."
Are some bets (and expectations) worse than others? YES!
Any layout bet that has a possible return, less than the total number of units expended, ie; randomly scattered, is about as bad as it gets.
Believing that a number/dozen/colour is "due" is a close second in the sucker category IMO.

Fyodor , you are pretty much on the mark about the general approach of roulette system players. All we really care about is a fair game loaded with the expectation of walking out with a profit. But human nature loves to pioneer new ground so we join forums and explore other possibilities that we have not thought of ourselves. Curiosity I believe is the right word to best describe this human behaviour.
I think forums are beneficial to all who aspire to learn more and improve their game even if the information you read and test directs you back to your own time tested system, it was perhaps an expensive lesson avoided.
To answer the question, Yes, some bets are worse than others but this is relative to the system or approach played. However, regardless of the bet, the payout always short pays by the house edge.

Worse than that, the phantom (2.7027027027%) house "edge" disguises a harder "edge!"
The benchmark only applies at one wager point, that is where you have placed one unit/chip on one single number (per spin)
The withholding of the correct payout (36to1) as opposed to 35to1, means that not only did the "house" underpay correct odds, your signified "winning" chip was just a positional marker.
It gets worse very quickly.
By the 35to1 reasoning, a split/cheval should pay 17.5 to 1, and becomes more diluted as you go through streets, double streets and etc..
Best illustration of the worst case scenario is that if you place a maximum wager on a single number, say 29 with table limit chips (100 units each) and you cover 1x EP, 8xSPLT 16xCNR, 3x STRT, 12xLN, the outlay is 40x100 unit chips, (4000units)
Ball lands in 29!
Payout is an INCREDIBLE 39,200 UNITS!
Wait a minute, is that right?
Yes it is, and the odds are a paltry 9.8 to 1.
But, you didn't lose any chips, however, because of the splits, corners and lines a total of 28 chips did not provide ANY return, they just sat there, making the table "Look" generous.
And that was a MAXIMUM WINNING WAGER!
What "kills" you at the table, is not that tiny, often misquoted 2.7% it's the ATTRITION RATE.
That will dash your dreams and hopes almost every time.

A well scripted reply. This is how we learn. Thank you Fyodor.

House edge and other obstacles to win are there to scare fools.
There is absolutely no reason to hunt for individual number with " complete bet". If someone is that greedy, with some traveling he can find higher table limit or invite a friend(s) to maximise take per hour.

Awesome post Fyodor! Still trying to wrap my brain around that!! :D
So far my thoughts are running as follows:
1) We will lose more than we win
2) We must use probability & money management to overcome our losses or our wins will not be enough to be profitable
PROBABILITY > A combination of bet selection & statistics where we configure our bets to have the greatest chance of hitting
MONEY MANAGEMENT > A recovery betting plan that increases the size of our gains so we recover faster than we lose, while at the same time minimizing our risk in case of further losses
Money management is not separate from probability & statistics, instead it harmonizes with them as an integral part of the whole.
Money management relies upon probability for its very survival.
In other words, each component must be designed with the others in mind; each relies upon the others for its success.
Here is a post that I really like about the money management concept:
https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=2.msg26944#msg26944
and the post below it, 2 posts down, with the graphic.
If we do our job well in designing all of these systems both accurately & synergistically, we can be profitable.

Who is planning to recover is planning to loose first and then struggle. ....
It's not a good idea to recover. Wright down the loss and go after the win that is much higher then any loss posible. After few of these wins you will forget about recovery forever.

I noticed that is your approach such as:
How to explain. ... lm doing good, better then 99.9 % of players .
Last time l remember l had 8 sessions wins on the row and made 40k gbp during them. Longest was 2 hours and brought me 20k of these 40.
Sessions on the row show very little in my case as l do not put " not to loose " as an objective by itself. Losses are programmed in my way of play, at least 10% of the sessions l will naturally loose due to very agressive way of betting.
Betting agressive is what permits me to achieve results l want ( win/ target/ money per hour) and avoid big mistakes and losses.
:D

It's most reasonable thing to do...
If game doesn't go well, no need to stay there... better come later when it makes more friendly conditions.

Hedge bets on a table with EV is not the best option, but OK better win on betting a few more numbers, dispite it is not optimal. On a Wheel with fair odds we can hedge free at no cost.
The worse bet is "Overhedge" like stupid bets (which happen) six on low and hedge 3 on high in case!!!
If it is a single zero on the wheel ( or God forbid two zeros) it is not at all a good bet.
Some "cover zero" is bad practise, they bet on high or red, and hedge zero, a number as any not red/high number, why not hedge number 11?

It's not hedging. It's out of the blue betting.
Hedging is when you cover all posiblities and yet have a profit. What is a profit to cover more numbers?
Casinos like such players, they never break the bank and never win.
Real hedging starts when you have a target and you know any other target that ball may arrive, if it behave some other way then expected.... so you cover both targets in case if you not sure.
There is no point to hedge negative expectation situations, in this case it's just more money subject to HE for nothing.

Well said indeed, MrP.

When I wager on the DS my betting scheme is 5102040.The forth step I bet also one unit on the zero. I look to the stats of the last 50 spins to see how the zero is sleeping.