Tested: Sleeping Dozen Concept

[mistarlupo]

Hi all,

I'm testing the concept of taking advantage of sleeping dozens. Basically, I wait for a dozen to sleep for X number of spins and then start betting on the other two. The idea is that the two non-sleeping dozens become an EC that pay two to one. The simulation is based on a no-zero roulette wheel, 0% house advantage. I don't use any sort of progression or money management. So we begin to hunt for sleeping dozens... I begin with waiting for a dozen to sleep for 7 spins and then start betting:

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #1 >7

TOTAL Number of Spins:
10,000,000
TOTAL Number of Bets:
1,169,373
TOTAL Number of Hits:
779,918
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66.6954000% [Math: 66.6666666%]
TOTAL Number of Losses:
389,455
TOTAL Percent of Losses:
33.3045999% [Math: 33.3333333%]
TOTAL NET Units:
+1008u

TOTAL NET Percent:
+0.0431000% [HE: 0.0000000%]

=================================

Then I tried changing the waiting period to 10, 17 and 28 spins:

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #2 >10

TOTAL Number of Spins:
30,000,000
TOTAL Number of Bets:
1,040,780
TOTAL Number of Hits:
693,537
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66.6362727% [Math: 66.6666666%]
TOTAL Number of Losses:
347,243
TOTAL Percent of Losses:
33.3637272% [Math: 33.3333333%]
TOTAL NET Units:
-949u

TOTAL NET Percent:
-0.0455908% [HE: 0.0000000%]

=================================

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #3 >17

TOTAL Number of Spins:
500,000,000
TOTAL Number of Bets:
1,016,279
TOTAL Number of Hits:
677,253
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66.6404599% [Math: 66.6666666%]
TOTAL Number of Losses:
339,026
TOTAL Percent of Losses:
33.3595400% [Math: 33.3333333%]
TOTAL NET Units:
-1016u

TOTAL NET Percent:
-0.0499862% [HE: 0.0000000%]

=================================

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #4 >28

TOTAL Number of Spins:
40,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Bets:
940,051
TOTAL Number of Hits:
626,081
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66.6007482% [Math: 66.6666666%]
TOTAL Number of Losses:
313,970
TOTAL Percent of Losses:
33.3992517% [Math: 33.3333333%]
TOTAL NET Units:
-1859u

TOTAL NET Percent:
-0.0988776% [HE: 0.0000000%]

=================================


Regards,
m

[Noble Savage]

Thanks Mistarlupo.

This shows that it doesn't matter how long you wait for something to "sleep", the hit percentage will always conform with expectation.

[mistarlupo]

Well, I believe most of us know the outcome of similar betting strategies in advance. But I want to get some feedback from those who use such approaches and claim that an advantage can be attained.

What's wrong with it guys?

[GLC]

Well, I believe most of us know the outcome of similar betting strategies in advance. But I want to get some feedback from those who use such approaches and claim that an advantage can be attained.

What's wrong with it guys?

Thanks mistarlupo.  Some of us are so anxious to find something that works that we keep thinking we can warp the odds with progressions, waiting for sleepers, waiting for hot numbers, waiting for certain events to occur, etc...  It's a good wake-up-call to see it in black and white.

I guess the only thing that will be debated now is if how you play the system, how long, keep playing when winning, leave when losing, etc... can make a loser into a winner.

Keep up the good work, even though some of us hate to see it. 

GLC

P.S.  I guess for the die hards they can conclude that waiting for 7 misses is the holy grail.  Not!

[Bayes]

If you think Random has limits and try to exploit this belief, you'll soon realise it doesn't. You can see this by looking at the bell curve. At first glance, it looks as though the curve touches the x-axis at the tail ends, but it doesn't. Ever. It just goes on to infinity, never quite touching, like a receding horizon.

Some time ago I tested a system which tried to capitalize on the 'fact' that you very rarely see an EC go for more than 50 spins without two wins in a row. To avoid having to wait for opportunities, I created some 'synthetic' bet selections by betting 'virtually' on patterns. In total there were nearly one hundred thousand separate bet selections, each of which was tracked, waiting for a 50 spin stretch without a double-win. At that point I started betting. What I found was that instead of getting a win within a few spins, it would go another 15, 20 or more spins without a double hit.

Here is a great post by Victor, which demonstrates the fallacy nicely:

If you say someone "dozen 2" missed for 37 spins, they will more likely say a dozen can't sleep so long, they have never witnessed such a thing, and the ones that do accept it will say it very rarely happens.

If you ask someone about what is consistent in roulette, they'll mention you things such as the "Law of the third", which states that out of a cycle of 37 spins one third of the numbers will show twice, one third will show only once and the other third won't show... a third being 12 numbers (= a dozen! not showing for 37 spins as one of the most consistent observed events in roulette).

It's true that you won't see the 'standard' dozen sleep for much longer than 30 spins, but the probability that SOME 12 numbers will sleep that long or longer is very high, because there are a huge number of ways you can choose 12 numbers from 37.

[Breeze88]

betting on extreme sleepers is theoretically the HG .. but not practically unplayable..

if u simply track each number and all the standard betting layouts .. on several tables .. till u got a trigger u have a winner .. for sure ... as for closed randomness on a roulette wheel.. but it would take ages till u got a safe bet,.,  thou


just take those stats .. for ur benchmarks.. ie.. when to bet..

nolinks://nolinks.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1240824672/

[Noble Savage]

betting on extreme sleepers is theoretically the HG ..

Not really. If it were we would all have known already.

Betting on sleepers (extreme or not) is called the gambler's fallacy. It's the oldest attempt to beat roulette ever made.

It doesn't matter if you wait for 100 Reds and then bet Black, you'd have no advantage whatsoever. It's the same as betting Black at any point in time.

Don't take my word for it, the computer is your friend. Just create 30 (or so) artificial bets using the table layout and set a simulation to look for long sleepers over a few million spin. Collect the bet results in the form of stats and you'll see that they're no different than any other bet selection (including betting randomly).

[I have cookies]

Mistarlupo have you try to find a sleeping pattern and play does favorites that are active ?

O_o

[Herb6]

Another system based on Gambler's Fallacy.

Again, read about the history of roulette.  This system will not work.  If you read about the history, then you will instantly see this system is a folly.

[Herb6]

-