☄ alt2005 reveals the math behind roulette and answers questions

I suggest going from the general to the specific. For simplicity, you can start looking for patterns at the level of dozens: 1-2-3. Then move on to sixlines, streets, splits, arbitrary blocks of numbers and specifically to single numbers.

NUM D
29 - 3
31 - 3
20 - 2
23 - 2
26 - 3
11 - 1
7 - 1
6 - 1
22 - 2
10 - 1
6 - 1
22 - 2
9 - 1
7 - 1
17 - 2
25 - 3
5 - 1
7 - 1
29 - 3
33 - 3
28 - 3
35 - 3
7 - 1
18 - 2
0 - 0
29 - 3
0 - 0
21 - 2
25 - 3
24 - 2

26 - 3
9 - 1
0 - 0
36 - 3
0 - 0
14 - 2
10 - 1
26 - 3
36 - 3
17 - 2
25 - 3
31 - 3
1 - 1
28 - 3
31 - 3
36 - 3
17 - 2
29 - 3
29 - 3
7 - 1
18 - 2
10 - 1
24 - 2
22 - 2
36 - 3
21 - 2
16 - 2
27 - 3
4 - 1
26 - 3

14 - 2
0 - 0
8 - 1
26 - 3
30 - 3
7 - 1
8 - 1
30 - 3
4 - 1
15 - 2
2 - 1
15 - 2
3 - 1
22 - 2
8 - 1
14 - 2
15 - 2
24 - 2
1 - 1
0 - 0
27 - 3
21 - 2
2 - 1
32 - 3
3 - 1
17 - 2
18 - 2
28 - 3
3 - 1
24 - 2

The concept of "number repetition" is a special case.
I propose to move on to the more general case of "any guessed number".

In theory, all alt2005 calculations are also applicable to any guessed number. In its sample, alt2005 started counting between pairs of identical numbers, and in the general case, counting can be started from the moment the forecast is formed.

Mathematics tells us that we can guess any number from 0-37 with absolutely equal chances of success, because the numbers that came up in the past do not affect the numbers that came up in the future.

But experience, the son of difficult mistakes, tells us that a lot depends on the ability to GUESS numbers. It is very stupid to take numbers out of thin air. There are models that allow you to "be in trend", "catch collisions", "ignore the cold", "take into account adaptive responses", etc., which allows you to increase your efficiency.

If "17" hasn't appeared in the last 50 spins, what's the point of betting on it?

I would like to understand the factors and markers that, contrary to dry mathematics, will allow us to be harmonious in understanding the generation of spins.

about adaptive, watch a short video, as for me everything is obvious ))) and when there are too many of these fuck-ups per square meter of your game, it means that the adaptive syringe was shoved up your ass and they want to suck out all your money or, on the contrary (too bad it's rare) to throw credit up )))) they have serious algorithms there and full control of the game of all participants )))

Hello.
Well, I don't perceive it as negative. Rather, I treat everything with humor. Alt2005 is generally not a conflict person)))) The main thing is that things get done.
Due to the late hour, I will write briefly for now. You are actually talking about machinations on the part of the casino. And I am just trying to dig up something, based on the fact that there are no manipulations with the ball. That is, without adaptive. But even if everything is honest, it is very difficult to find a consistently positive strategy (if at all possible). Mathematics itself is against the player, and it is difficult to argue with this lady.

I need to refresh the concept of "distance distribution" in order to discuss
which I will do with pleasure

OK, I'll come back and refresh this concept in a few days. It's actually quite simple. But it's the apparent simplicity that's insidious.

P.S. Katala was banned by RKN. I don't want to use a proxy. Although it's strange, you can access it from a mobile Internet (but not always). By the way, Olynes is also present there.

Hello!!!!
don't take my statements as negative, especially towards you ))))
I'm very glad that you found this site where the casinos really want to win

//////////////////////

Distribution of distances is a mathematical phenomenon, and statistically confirmed a thousand times. Unlike the so-called adaptive, which no one has ever seen. And even the most amiable Mr. Shpilevoy himself will hardly be able to say from specific statistics whether there is an adaptive or not.

in fact, if you watch some generation and don't know the stakes during the game = you're right, the presence of an adaptive can only be predicted indirectly... for example, we see a frozen small series and assume that it is there that someone got stuck with their progressions, and they throw him over until the money runs out or he lowers the stakes several times (goes out of the return zone to his own)....
but when you play and place bets yourself, then the ADAPTIVE can be easily traced by too frequent throws of "nae$kam" (especially on levs, pneumatics, etc., where there are trajectories of exit from the bolt track) =
a) they knock the ball into the middle of your sector and push it behind your last standing neighbor
b) they post the previous fat one to you as soon as you leave it
c) you see violations of the laws of physics in the trajectories (going off at 90 degrees, flying around the canoe over the top, sticking in the pocket and unsticking before a new spin, sudden emergence of additional energy when the current one fades... = you can see a lot of things on charged roulettes)
etc.

///////////////////////////////////

I need to refresh the concept of "distance distribution" to discuss
which I will do with pleasure

////////////////////
what wind blew you to Katala? except for trolling + black PR of all significant topics about casinos with further extortion of money for deleting shit topics, there was never anything good there... and especially useful FOR PLAYERS )))

klick wrote: I have a few questions for alt2005.
1) How do you understand the Monty Hall paradox?

DLK has already explained everything. Briefly again. If you choose a door (card) change strategy in advance, then you can lose only in one case - if you initially chose the right door. The probability of this is 1/3, therefore the probability of winning = 2/3. I checked this in Excel on thousands of tests. In 2/3 cases, a win, in 1/3 a loss, with high accuracy.

Don't you think that in a similar situation there will be a roulette player who continues to stand on his option when other numbers fall? It will be correct to change his initial choice and this is the same paradox, and it is possible to mathematically prove that dynamic bets are much better than static ones?

It doesn't seem so. It doesn't work in roulette. Because no one will show you an "empty" door. And it makes no difference whether you change your choice or not. The probability for any number is 1/37.

2) How to correctly calculate the continuous probability of the event that the casino will roll out the player's bets on roulette?
An example for simplicity.
The player bets 5 certain numbers each spin.

For a single spin:
Probability W 5/37 = 0.135. Accordingly, the probability of the casino to throw past the bets L 32/37 or 1-0.135 = 0.865

History of the game.
1 spin: loss. L = 0.865
2 spins: loss. L = 0.865 * 0.865 = 0.748225 probability that the casino will throw past the bets 2 spins in a row
3 spins: loss L = 0.865*0.865*0.865 = 0.647 that 3 spins in a row will throw past
Up to this point, everything is clear.

4 spins: win.
I can't understand how to apply W in order to continue calculating the probability of L.

5 spins: another win.
I'm completely confused about what to add or divide with what so that L is correctly calculated for this situation in the game.

What's the confusion? Probability is always calculated only for future events. If the event has already happened, then you can forget about it. Start all over again.
Past events have no probability (or you can consider it equal to 1).