Home / Research guides

Aviator Data Analysis: What 5,653 Recorded Rounds Show

Frozen study, not a live forecast. Published 12 October 2026 by Aviator Gap Tracker. Data covers 7–11 October 2026; figures below do not update as new rounds arrive.

We examined 5,653 saved multiplier results to understand recorded gaps and choose less noisy observation alerts. This is a report about our own incomplete collection, not the full game population or proof of a winning strategy.

How the data was prepared

The snapshot ends at saved row 5653 and covers 7 October 2026 at 06:06:02 UTC through 11 October at 18:01:41 UTC. It includes two collector histories whose observed date ranges did not overlap at inspection. Provider round identifiers were unavailable, so we could not independently establish complete coverage or rule out every duplicate.

We split the records into 28 observation segments at collector/source changes, backwards timestamps or gaps longer than two minutes in observation or server-arrival times. That rule is a practical interruption check, not a guarantee of continuous capture: a legitimate long round can also create a break.

Completed gaps in this sample

A gap counts recorded results below a target between two hits. For this study, both hits had to be inside one observation segment. The table is not a forecast of how many rounds remain.

Important limitation: unfinished waits and waits crossing interruptions are excluded. This can make completed-gap averages look too low, particularly for rare targets. The archive's all-saved-session comparison uses a different definition: it can count recorded rows across restarts. Do not compare the two as identical statistics.

How observation alerts were calibrated

The first 3,957 rows formed the earlier calibration portion. The remaining 1,696 rows formed a later comparison portion. Thresholds were increased using earlier data until each selected rule produced at most five first-match alerts per 1,000 earlier rounds. This was a notification-noise target, not a profit objective.

The twelve selected rules produced 79 rule activations in the later portion—about 46.6 per 1,000 rounds across the set. Some rules overlap, so those activations are not independent observations or necessarily separate Telegram messages. Future notification frequency can differ. The later data had been viewed during exploration, so this is a retrospective temporal check, not a pristine preregistered test.

Did a long wait identify a better next round?

No reliable advantage was established. After the seven-round no-2x condition, the next observed result reached 2x+ in 5 of 11 later matches: 45.5%, compared with 48.8% across the later portion. After the 31-round no-10x condition, none of five later matches was immediately followed by 10x+. Those samples are far too small for dependable prediction claims.

All selected rules' descriptive next-round 95% Wilson intervals included their respective later baseline rates. This was not a formal test adjusted for overlapping windows, multiple comparisons or data-selection effects. More fresh, independently checked data would be needed before any predictive claim.

What the findings are useful for

They make the limits visible: historical averages depend on coverage, rare targets have small samples, and alerts can describe unusual records without forecasting the next result. Use our round history guide to read records and our gap explanation to understand the live columns.

Paid access provides the retained-history workspace and export tools, not a promise of financial results. Compare passes only if those research tools fit your needs.