Distinct difference
Selection A
Wait for a series of three or higher then observe when a series of two appears.
Calculate how many singles show between both and write down the number for each complete sequence.
Selection B
Wait for a single or a series of two and observe when a series of three or higher appears.
Calculate how many singles show between both (until a series of three or higher) and write down the numbers for each sequence.
Option A will have less amount of singles within each sequence.
Option B will have more singles within each sequence.
So, if someone was targeting two in a row we should discard option B and use option A.
Don't know if this has to do with the law of series where a series of two is more common than a series of three and higher.
Also, thinking about equilibrium where a single and series of two is a very close call
and the difference between a single and a series of three or higher is a more distinct difference.
Cheers!
Thanks, Patrik. This is the kind of research which I find interesting and is more likely to lead to improved chances than the usual simplistic "wait for a lot of virtual losses before betting" kind of approach. Do you have any hard statistics on the difference?
I download TRNGs from random org and observe - in this case - 2000 random bits with options a and b.
Where there was an obvious observation that made me react.
So is not statistically significant.
Cheers
Whatever bet selection we choose by any logic will not win by itself in the long run and house edge and negative variance will surely kick in. A solution lies in a sensible progression meant for the long run incorporating a workable table limit and bankroll. Dreaming of winning in long run with flat bet with any sort of bet selection can not work. I have worked with all sorts of bet selections for the last two decades. None gives advantage by itself.
Although, I believe in triggers but I do not claim it to work by itself ever, in isolation.