Best CGM about roulette

Rather, skill is determined by a) the betting field configuration b) the accuracy of guessing c) behavior at different stages of the game and with different BR in hand d) how much faster you calculate the payout than the dealer e) how flexible your thinking is f) attention to detail g) etc. *** "after looking at your throw" no one will immediately say or did you rehearse the approach to the table and move away from the table in front of the mirror? so that the audience would immediately appreciate "oh-oh-oh-oh, there goes the master" The main criterion is monetary. How much you are in the plus in the context of a week/month/year/life. You can walk even on your knees and with feathers on your head - this has no connection with the throw ... If you knew what variance is, you would understand that all upstreaks and downstreaks are placed within certain limits and going beyond these limits just shows who can do what and not the "betting field configuration".

a day in poker is 90% luck and 10% skill, but a year in poker is 90% skill and 10% luck

---

do you know what probability theory is? Or do you think that the probability of meeting a dinosaur on the street is 1/2 - or meeting or not? How are you going to win in a mathematically negative game? If you are a seer - no problem. But if you are not a seer, then you will still have to read something about probability theory.

---

So, from a mathematical point of view, it makes no difference whether you come to a casino for 100 days in a row and make one bet on roulette, or make 100 bets during the day. The casino's advantage over you will not decrease. Only in one case, roughly speaking, it can be realized during one day, in the other you will only prolong your agony. From a mathematical point of view, it makes no difference whether you do 5 spins per day or one spin for 5 days. It's all one long game.

---

I understand that from a mathematical point of view, I lose 2.7% of the turnover. But I'll put it this way: I don't give a damn how much % I lose from the turnover if my bankroll grows. I know that even if I manage to win at least $100,000,000, the wheel will not turn into a game with +MO for me, but I don't care, the main thing for me is the million I get. I don't play by spins. Roughly speaking, I have a daily limit that I have to win. It happens that the game doesn't go well (I'm stuck in one place, sometimes a small "+", sometimes a "-"), then I stay at the same BR and don't play anymore that day. On average I play 35-40 minutes, this is enough to get the limit. One hour is the limit of my game. The last 4 days I play for 8 minutes, I took a risk, but such were the circumstances this week.

I play on dozens. but how can I say this! maybe it just seems to me, but there is a tendency that the dozens come up in turns. for example: first the 2nd and 3rd come up and I bet on them until the first loss. that means the 1st dozen came up. then I look at how many times 2 and 3 came up before that, if 5 or more times, then I make an empty spin and if the 2nd or 3rd comes up again, then I increase the bet and bet again on the 2nd and 3rd. since their coming up is more likely (my observation). if after an empty spin I bet on 2 and 3, but the 1st comes up again, then most likely they will alternate (let's say the 1st dozen and one of the other two). and there are only three types of falling out: 1) long falling out (series) 2-3 dozens (and their analogues) 2) short alternations 1-1-2-3-1 (or a variety of 2-2 3-3) 3) long 1st dozen up to 9 times in a row maybe I've overloaded you with my scribbling, but I just can't figure out how to describe my chimera (strategy + intuition). but so far this chimera works and seems to be working well. in any case, I bet on two dozens and always bet on the 2nd. 1-2 or 2-3. something like that))

so far I manage to win. I play regularly (every day) and have never had a "-". I play to earn money, although I have not considered and will not consider myself a professional player. 15 EUR. per day, it's not much, but this is my small BR for now. I expect to reach 200 euros per day. This time (the one in question) it turned out like this: I placed the penultimate three bets at 1 euro per color, there were 3 euros left until the d/limit. I skipped spins, I always do this when I'm in doubt about where to place a bet. I have a very risky progression, since I can only increase 6 times. But I have to take risks, because masturbation is already happening, and if I decrease the initial bet even more, I'll have to masturbate twice as much. So far, the progression has reached 5 increases at most, sometimes three times per day session. And that's crazy.

Still, the topic should have been called differently. Apparently, I got carried away. It's sad, but I lost. I'll have to start over. I brought it from 28 to 1429, I wanted to round it up to 1500, but the casino decided otherwise. We disagreed on our (the casino's) wishes.

There are only two realities: the first is the taking of money from the population in favor of the casino, by the casino itself. The second is an attempt by players to take at least something away from the casino.

I don't know why, it went that way. I remember the first marathon as a fantasy story. It was so easy to win. And in this marathon, from 22 euros, I managed to rise to 38, and then f...k.

---

I see roulette with a tool that turns it into a positive game as a consolation and a promised land for 95% of poker players!

---

Don't deceive yourself, no one but you needs your expenses and examples, you are simply drawn to play roulette more and more. So you find reasons to play, and this is already an illness, roulette has ruined many

---

Dostoevsky about systems:

…. Meanwhile, I observed and noticed; it seemed to me that the calculation itself means very little and does not at all have the importance that many players attach to it. They sit with lined pieces of paper, note the blows, count, deduce the odds, calculate, finally bet and - lose exactly the same as we, mere mortals, playing without calculation. But I came to one conclusion, which seems to be true: indeed, in the course of random chances there is, although not a system, but some kind of order, which, of course, is very strange. For example, it happens that after the twelve middle digits come the last twelve; twice, let us say, the blow falls on these twelve last ones and passes to the twelve first ones. Having fallen on the twelve first ones, it passes again to the twelve middle ones, strikes three or four times in a row on the middle ones and again passes to the twelve last ones, where, again after two times, it passes to the first ones, again strikes the first ones once and again passes to three strikes on the middle ones, and thus it continues for an hour and a half or two hours. One, three and two, one, three and two. It is very funny. Another day or another morning goes, for example, so that the red one is replaced by the black one and back again almost without any order, every minute, so that more than two or three strikes in a row do not fall on the red or on the black one. But on another day or another evening there is only one red one in a row; comes, for example, more than twenty-two times in a row and so certainly goes on for some time, for example, for a whole day.

---

I know one person who plays almost according to a mathematical system and claims that he is in the black for 5 years. He plays quite often - 150 times a year, that's for sure. Before the start of the game, he comes up with how many times he can really win during his game. Or how much he wants to win. He bets 12-18 numbers (something like this). Let's say he decided that he can really hit the target 6 times in an evening by betting on 18 numbers and he wants to win $48. 48/6 = about $8 per bet. If he wins the first bet, then he still needs 5 wins of $8 each. If he loses, then he has 48+8= 56/6= 9,... left to reach his goal. If he loses several times in a row, he increases the number of wins he needs to reach his goal so that the bet does not grow quickly. I am not sure that this betting method allows him to win. But I believe that he is not lying. He even calls this method - leave the loss for the very distant future. Increasing the bets is certainly not good, but for him it happens very gradually, since after losses he begins to extend the session.

Discipline (BRM is also included in this concept, tilt resistance, analysis of your condition) is one of the main things in almost all gambling games. "long distance" when playing on "equal chances": about 7400 spins, without progression, and with progression up to 150,000 spins. The rules of roulette are such that the player in the long run loses to the casino with a probability close to 100%. Because he plays against the casino, which has an advantage expressed by a figure that is equal to 2.7% on roulette with one zero and 5.4% on roulette with two zeros. Probably, if roulette was made with 10 zeros, you would not play it <on dozens>? And why? After all, there is also a chance to win for some time? But you would not. Because the casino's advantage would already be 27%. If you are a very good roulette player, you may win this amount, in the lottery and millions of times less probabilities happen, but you definitely won’t be able to earn money this way for a long time. The same result, that is, you can win a thousand times in 5 minutes, placing a bet of 1 to 10 and so on three times, from the point of probability theory, your game for 2 months does not increase the probability of your winning. “Rounding” is one of the main mystical enemies of the roulette player... I want to mention one observation. I once studied hot and cold numbers, and the so-called temperatures. The temperature of a number is the number of different numbers between adjacent occurrences of this number. Thus, the coldest number has a temperature of 36, the hottest 0 (i.e., as if everything is the other way around). So. Temperatures have the same range 0-36 and are distributed in the same way as numbers. You can’t tell them apart from numbers. The next (closest) occurrence of a number does not depend on its temperature, i.e. it does not matter whether it is cold or hot. But I assumed that the maximum spread of occurrences somehow correlates with temperatures. Let's say the maximum non-repeat of number 10 was recorded 300 spins. Let's say number 10 became the coldest 140 spins after it was dropped. The distance in spins from the moment it became cold until its next occurrence should be smaller, namely 300-140=160. It is logical to assume that this will be the case for all numbers. But despite this, in the general mass of statistics, the maximum spread of occurrences, relative to the moment when the number becomes cold, is almost the same as if we counted the spins immediately after it was dropped. That is, temperatures do not particularly affect even the maximum segment of non-drops, let alone the next occurrence.

I will correct myself. Today I discovered a difference between temperatures and numbers, and a rather serious one. And stable. But I don’t know yet how to use this... Probably because I haven’t yet understood the mathematical and statistical reason for this difference.

Regarding the 2/3 law. (alt2005) As I have said here many times, the so-called 2/3 law is not a law at all, but a consequence of school combinatorics. Over 10 years ago I made a program that calculates all possible variants of numbers coming up over a period of 37 spins, and calculates their probabilities. Even then it dawned on me that 2/3 is a completely useless thing, and even harmful. Now, if not 24-25 different numbers came up, but significantly fewer, then you could bet on repeats. In this case, you would obviously lose less and win more. Or, on the contrary, if more numbers came up, then you would need to bet on those that have not yet come up and also be in chocolate. But since exactly 24-26 of them come up, then whether you bet on those that have come up or on those that have not come up, you will still be in the minus over a large interval. About 2 years ago I began to seriously study distances. The numbers are repeated, and the distance is the number of spins between repetitions. I took statistics of about 20K spins from the Wiesbaden archive (there are a ton of them) and calculated the distance to the next repetition for each number. Then I simply sorted these distances in ascending order. I got this curve (I have posted this graph 100500 times). The Y axis shows the distance values, and the X axis simply shows their numbers over a 20K spin segment. What catches the eye? That there are more small distances than large ones. Distance 1 is approximately the largest, distance 2 is a little smaller (plus or minus), distance 3 is even smaller, etc. I took another sample - the same thing. I generated 40K random numbers in Excel - the same thing again. There are practically no differences. And this can be easily explained mathematically. The probability of repeating the number immediately on the next spin (i.e. distance = 1) is 1/37. The probability of repeating the number only after a spin (i.e. distance = 2) is 36/37 * 1/37. Let me explain for those who are not on good terms with the theory of probability, it's all simple. Let's say the number 10 came up on spin 1. The probability of repeating the number 10 only on the 3rd spin (after 2 spins) means that it did not come up on the 2nd spin (P = 36/37), and came up on the 3rd (P = 1/37). Then everything is as simple as pie. The probability of repeating only on the 4th spin (d = 3) P4 = 36/37 * 36/37 * 1/37. In general, the probability of repeating only on the (N + 1)th spin = (36/37) ^ N * 1/37. This thing is called a geometric distribution, because the probability decreases in geometric progression with a coefficient of 36/37. Approximately at point 25, the probability of a number coming up at least once is equal to the probability of it never coming up at all. Let me repeat: in 25 spins, the probability of a number coming up is the same as not coming up. That is, ½. If mathematically, then approximately 36/37 ^ 25 = 1 - 36/37 ^ 25. This means that in 25 throws, in half of the cases, the player will guess the number at least once. And this is clearly visible on the curve. This also means that in 25 times, approximately half of the numbers will come up (18-19). And not necessarily in a row. On any 25 spins. It also does not matter from which reference point to expect a number to appear. Not necessarily from its coming up. From any reference point. The 2/3 rule is essentially the same, only for 37 spins. Look at the curve. Distances from 1 to 37 take up about 2/3 of the entire graph. Plus or minus the spread. This means that distances from 1 to 37 occur in 2/3 of cases. This means that in 2/3 of cases the number will come up at least once on the interval 37. This means that on this interval approximately (more precisely no more than) 2/3 of the numbers come up (in 94% of cases) Everything clearly corresponds to the theory of faith. But this curve means a drain. It corresponds to a negative MO. And since the 2/3 law also lies on it, it is also a drain. Therefore, all the tales about how you can use the 2/3 law to win are, as Olynes said, bullshit for the feeble-minded. Those who need to will understand. And those who didn't get into it can continue to believe in this crap... to the delight of scammers. The ostrich hides its head in the sand, but its ass is still sticking out. And they will kick it mercilessly. It will hurt, especially if the ass and head have swapped places. Although the ass sticking out of the sand can also be useful. You can put strategies there based on 2/3, hot numbers, cold ones, "equalization laws", "waves", etc. If they all don't fit at the same time, no problem. You can shove them there one by one. Put them in - take them out, put them in - take them out. Erotica! I hope you are not tired of this scribbling. So I will continue. All reasoning about mathematical roulette, flat betting. No progressions. So, the distances have a geometric distribution (GR). This is the only distribution that has no memory. What does this mean? Let's look at the graph. If we stand at the beginning, then 50% of the distances are from 1 to 25. Let's try to skip 25 spins and start with the 26th. What do we see? The same thing. You can forget about the spins up to the 26th. On the remaining part of the curve, 50% of the distances are from 26 to 50, the rest of the distances are longer. If the 26th spin is considered the 1st (first), then everything is one to one - in half of the cases, these are distances from 1 to 25. Let's try to start with the 51st spin. Again, the same thing. Distances 51-75 are about half. Nothing has changed. What does this mean? It means that you can wait as long as you like for a number not to come up. Wherever you start betting on it, it will still come up in half the cases after 25 throws. Only half the cases. This means a drain. Sadly. The problem is that any number "tends" to come up as soon as possible. There is nothing good about this. On the contrary, if the probability of repeating the number was higher the further, the players would be in chocolate. You could just wait until it comes up for a long time, and start betting on it (which is what Vano tried to do). But then there would be no roulette as a business. I asked myself: under what conditions would the probabilities of guessing the number not earlier than a certain spin be the same at any step? The answer is not complicated. Simple arithmetic of about the 5th grade of elementary school. The probability of guessing the number is 1/37, everyone knows this. In order for the probability of guessing the number only at the 2nd step to be the same 1/37, it is necessary that 36/37 * x = 1/37, hence x = 1/37 : 36/37 = 1/36. In order for the probability of guessing the number only at the 3rd step to be the same 1/37, it is necessary that 36/37 * 35/36 * x = 1/37, hence x = 1/37 : (36/37 * 35/36) = 1/35. Here 36/37 is the probability of not getting it at the 1st step, 35/36 is the probability of not getting it at the 2nd step (35/36 = 1 - 1/36). In order for the probability of guessing the number only at the 4th step to be the same 1/37, it is necessary that 36/37 * 35/36 * 34/35 * x = 1/37, hence x = 1/37 : (36/37 * 35/36 * 34/35) = 1/34. Here 36/37 is the probability of not getting it on the 1st step, 35/36 is the probability of not getting it on the 2nd step (35/36 = 1 - 1/36), 34/35 is the probability of not getting it on the 3rd step. In short: the probability of getting it (guessing it) only on the Nth step is 1 / (38 - N) But it is not enough to draw the formulas, you also need to understand their meaning. And it is very simple: on the 1st step there are 37 numbers, on the 2nd 36, on the 3rd 35, etc. That is, the numbers that have come up should not come up again. Like in a deck of cards - the cards that have come up are not returned to the deck. But roulette is not a deck of cards. The fact that a number has just come up does not mean that it will fall asleep and will not come up on the next spin. The player starts each spin from scratch. The curve above illustrates this. Therefore, what? Therefore, its appearance must be changed. Either pressed at the beginning, or vice versa, bent at the end. Simply put - as long as you maintain the ratio of 25 distances in half of the cases (or, equivalently, 37 distances in 2/3 of the cases), you are doomed to lose. No strategies and methods will help if they do not change the appearance of this curve. If someone is building illusions - forget it. And there are no strategies until someone comes up with one. Only he will not blab about it. So, perhaps, there already are. For example, I only barked at standard strategies. I expressed an opinion on how not to play. But I did not say how to play. Theoretical theory did not exist either.