We all know that betting the less dominiand(Ecs) with a progression for the balalance to come is a proven loser !
But why is this happening?
Simply because roulette has proven over so many years that it doesn't know anything about balance ! And even if the balance will come for sure in let s say 1.000.000 spins, we will not be there to win, because we will have left a lot earlier ! LoL
Roulette is full of abnormal (non balanced) results ESPESIALLY in the short term results! And this is what we should take advantage of !
So I did something CRAZY !
I did the exact opposite of every system that needs balance to win !
I bet all the ECs. Exept IF some of them were EQUAL...e.g. RED 8 and BLACK 8 =then NO betting on RED/BLACK.
THE SYSTEM
So in the 1st spin of a new session I bet all the 3 Ecs that hit.
e.g. No 13 : I bet 1 chip on LOW 1 chip on ODD and 1 chip on BLACK.
If we win 3 or 2 of the 3 bets we are + .... So we start a new SESSION. Every session ends when we are + .
If we lose its because the 2 or all the 3 lost. so that means that now all the Ecs or the 2 of the 3 are EQUAL.
If all are equal we wait for the next spin and then bet the MOST DOMINIAND with as many chips as the diference is.
e.g. If the RED 10 and the BLACK 14 = we bet 4 chips on BLACK .(most dominiand)
IF EVEN is 12 and Odd 12 = NO BET on even/odd
and we do the same of LOW and HIGH
When we win we ADD chip on the winner(because the deference is bigger)
When we lose we MINUS chip (because the deference is smaller)
With this way we are taking FULL advantage of the unbalanced short term results that roulette is doing ALL the time !
I tested 40 sessions and all were winners !
The biggest down in a session was only -38 chips
The longest spins for comming in a profit was only 41.
As the balance is comming we do not have to afraid of anything because we are betting LESS chips !
If zero hits , we continue our play.
I think this idea hasn t been tested before. If yes then sorry I didn t know .
If you like the system please test with me and let s post our impressions.
thank you
If mr.ore likes the system and has the time maybe he can program it :) .
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're going on about. Could you post a small example of spins to highlight your method?
Many thanks
Buffalo
Hi RouletteExplorer,
Nice idea. Obviously will work better on a nozero (or single zero with le partage)
A quick test on wiesbaden numbers:
+117 in 68 spins. Max drawdown was 54u
High numbers were winning/trending spectacularly with big gap in the H/L even chance.
A.
thanks atlantis
When u were playing were you doing resets on the sessions after every new + ?
Everything would go better in a roulette without a zero :) . I just like playing only in real casinos
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 13, 03:14 PM 2011
thanks atlantis
When u were playing were you doing resets on the sessions after every new + ?
No. Should I have done? That sounds like the best/safest idea though :)
A.
Yes my friend.
I have already posted that after every new + in the BR , we must start a new session from the start.
That means that with the next number we are starting again betting only 1 chip on all 3 ecs.All the previous numbers don t count after a new + .
Buffalo
Do You know the ECs system that you are betting the Ecs that have left behind with so many chips as how many times they have left behind?
This system is exactly the opposite.
High numbers were winning/trending spectacularly with big gap in the H/L even chance.
Exactly ! this thing is happening all the time....so this is saving us when the other Ecs are hitting equal.
We must become unbalanced just like roulette.... ;D
Like Bruce Lee once said : Be like water......LoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoL
sorry to disappoint u but this stuff is not new and was tried before.
think of it this way: u play some fixed roulette numbers each time one of them hits (18, 18, 18). it can't work with randomness. randomness will not let u go on winning with this kind of stiff patterns.
in reality randomness is balanced (on a long run of course). that's why those patterns won't win.
it may be not a bad method though on a condition that
1) hit and run
2) combined with other kinds of hot trend playing
I don't know if it has been tested before exacty as I posted the system.
And we don't care about the balance in the long run...we just care about the unbalances that are happening all the time in the short run....and this is why we do resets after every new + .
Everytime is gonna make balance because something was left behind(so we were winning and reseting the session) we will also win because in order to have a balance in the long run, new unbalances must happen (so we will be also winning) ;) .....
Too good to be true?
we can t see unless we test
well, i wish u happy winnings anyway. but randomness will not let those stiff patterns win on a long run. though combination with other stuff could be good
Combinations aren t working...because we don't know WHEN to change the pattern.
But if u read above u will see that with the system the changes are being traped !!!!!!!!
Unbalance will make the ballance in the long run.....we traping the unbalances we are always up.
the idea itself is not bad at all. the old idea of hot trend playing is not bad. it is just that using it with limited stiff patterns only won't work
take it easy bud. go on with your testing. if u win on a long run-- i won't be upset believe me. but i don't think u will. don't hold your breath
Thanks for the nice words.
I am not holding my breath mate. I know that with every system we are trying to do do something impossibe....winning a game with negative expectation.
Its just a nice idea with nice potentials.
testing will tell.....
Yeah. Works better to me with reset after new +
+25 in 25 spins. (max d/down=4) on same numbers so far...
I like it. Would have quit long time before that (hit n run)
It is similar to some other trend systems - but I don't remember playing it this exact same way before. In that respect I find it interesting idea.
A.
Update: +49 in 68 spins (max d/down=8) Highest bet on an EC=4u
Thank you Atlantis.
I have read a lot of your posts and I respect you a lot.
The next thing that we have to do I guess is test a lot maybe with a program if the programers will respond and maybe after all the big testing to find a stop loss or something......
The reset is VITAL ! Because when the results are starting balancing we have already make a winning EXIT. So the ballance that will come will favour us because it will be again an imbalance....
Lets hope that the theory this time will be same in action too. :)
if u guys wanna test it accurately u should take as many wheels as possible. on one wheel it can hold for quite some time. if u win a few hundred or couple of thousand spins on the same wheel -- it does not mean it is really winning idea. but if u take 20 german wheels from RX and it will win 100 spins on each -- that would be something interesting.
and another thing -- don't try to use long progression with it for God's sake.
and remember, this was tried many times before, that's not a new idea. it is one of those very simple things which was tried by hundreds of players i guess
Thanks for your advice iggiv.
Will you test with us? :P
We CAN NOT have a BIG progression with this system !
Simply because as we are losing , we MINUS the CHIPS !
We do not care about negative comments here....
I could also post for every system things like:
a) Oh! Don t test it....zero will kill you
b)Oh! Don t test it....roulette maths can t change
and stuff like those........
As you agreed it s a nice idea...so it needs a big testing at least :)
i think i tried it. long time ago
I have never seen in any roulette forum this exact idea.
48 session won till now from my testings.
Max Down = -38
Max spins for new + =43
Total winning chips = +117 chips ! And all this with only 38 chips Br.
i am not sayin gon't test it. u get experience if u test something like this. and even if u lose it on small units is unlikely that u lose a lot. so this method is not dangerous at least. but if such methods worked on a long run, u know the result yourself. roulette would not exist in casinos.
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 13, 03:51 PM 2011
I have never seen in any roulette forum this exact idea.
playing hot trends together? it was tried many times
LoL. Iggiv. We all know what you mean.
we are just trying for Christ sake! :)
Let s hope the exact idea has never tested before....or if it was tested it was secretly and the ppl that tested it are now retired living in Villas . :P
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 13, 03:51 PM 2011
I have never seen in any roulette forum this exact idea.
48 session won till now from my testings.
Max Down = -38
Max spins for new + =43
Total winning chips = +117 chips ! And all this with only 38 chips Br.
Great results!! How are you testing, RouletteExplorer - and real or rng?
How long is each of your sessions?
Thanks,
Atlantis.
bremen wheel
I am ALWAYS testing ANY SYSTEM with REAL SPINS .
My sessions can be 1 spin or 43(the longest so far)
I guess an average session from my testings till now is about 12 spins.
But this is too early to make conclusions about averages. ;)
Iggiv you should continue the session. And I hope you are making RESETS.
If BIG bro Iggiv is testing ,then i think we have an intresting system. :P
i been there bud already. now it is your turn :)
You can t know where I have been ;) .
I just think that this has never tested before and this is why I am testing it.
happy winnings!
IF WE HAVE WINNINGS YOU HAVE WINNINGS ! ;D
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 13, 03:51 PM 2011
I have never seen in any roulette forum this exact idea.
48 session won till now from my testings.
Max Down = -38
Max spins for new + =43
Total winning chips = +117 chips ! And all this with only 38 chips Br.
Cause you haven't be long enough here mate.But don't get discouraged
if you believe in something just explore it to the end.....Iwill not as know final score.
I really can get it .
I am posting a Topic with a system.
It shows nice results so far and it s theory seems like a nice idea.
And some people are coming in this topic just to say that they know everything and that it will fail.
Well guess what? I ALREADY know what is roulette and what is its power and that its unbeatable and bla bla bla.....
So what do you want?
Do you want no one to post any system?
Then why are you in here? why this forum even exists?
no one has ever found a winning idea...including F_LAT_INO and Iggiv..
so if you want to do something nice test the system or don't come in the Topics just to say that systems won t work.
We don't need your opinion,because your opinion is also our opinion. "Roulette is unbeatable !"
Ok....then leave this place and do something more creative if you don't like roulette.......
I am here to explore , explore and explore....
No matter how much i have explored roulette from every ancle....i want to expore more and find new ancles...... AFTER ALL THIS IS THE PERPOSE OF THESE FORUMS.
I saw Flatinos Topics.....none of them produced a winning system....so what? Did I post anything negative in them?
Anything that F_LAT_INO , Iggiv or anyone else has ever posted in any forum , I already know it 100 years ago....so what? does this makes them having a lower knowledge from me?
And if yes...so what?
Leave the Topics alone......if something you don't like, keep it to urself.
Its those kind of attitudes that all roulette forums are dead nowdays.
Being in roulette forums so many years means that you like roulette forums( I am speaking about the negative members).....so don't destroy something that you like.
GG is dead , VLS is dead...why? because of the negative members....do u like the same to happen in here?
Is any roulette programer willing to make a program of this system???
we can test 100.000 spins fast with a program....If it fais we move on to an other idea....if it wins we can all benefit from it.
Ok for the members that are intrested....
This system is going very very good !
Everything are working smoothly....
The downs are smooth and the recoveries fast.
The only thing that I am adding on the system is that if there is a stage that we have to bet more than 9 chips on a spin I am betting the zero.
I am not betting the zero straight.....
If for eg. I have to bet on the bets RED ODD HIGH and i have to bet more than 9 chips then I am also covering the split 0-2/ (because 2 is not red or odd or hight) . so with that i am not only winning if zero comes but i also have covered 1 more number that its NOT in the main Ecs bet,,.,.
The 0-2 was just an example....it could be 0-1 or 0-3 split if the betting on the Ecs was deferent....
You could also bet the trio 0-1-2 if the main bet is less than 10 chips....
I can say that with this add on, this system is one the safests .And very nice profits .
Test with me if you like.
well, if u don't want any constructive criticism then yeah...
u r genious, your idea is genious, nobody dares to tell u anything, u r the first in the world of 200 years to come with the idea of betting 3 winning EC bets. We all know nothing comparing to your knowledge, and what our advices and opinions can do? only harm your genious which needs only
clapping, clapping, clapping and telling how great u r and your system is.
i don't get. u come to someone to give him your real life experience advice in friendly manner, to give your honest opinion, to help him, and what u get? he tells u that u r just a negative ass hole which tries to shut down the forum.
u know what? from now on -- yes, i am gonna ignore u, thanks a lot. it is better than sharing anything with u or trying to explain anything.
take care and learn how to stand fair criticism. maybe u will with the time. but explore the roulette without me, or anyone which tries to explain u something u don't understand. go along only with people which will applaud u and will lick and kiss your wise butt
and before i start ignoring i will tell u the cruel truth. U don't understand randomness if u really hope to win on a long run with 3 last winning choices. Test as much as u want, u will finally see that i am right as FLatino who tested this stuff long ago as well.
but what i say is not gonna influence the results, so don't tell me that because of people like me or Flatino things don't get well on roulette forums. everyone is entitled to have their opinions. period.
it's a free world, so don't try to shut people up
RouletteExplorer, You can go on with the discussion on your method, they unlocked the topic, and i have no idea who locked it, though it is under my name in logs.
something weird goin on here...
Dear R_E somewhen i shared the same enthusiam like you about finding the way to beat this game(I still do somewhat but in the level "Just cheat the F***ck game as long as my session lasts,steal some units and get the hell out of there") but as most of regular members we have tested A LOT of methods so we can say if a method would survive in the long run or not,even if it's not tested with thousands of spins .This one works great for you so far and you look excited about it so don't care about what everybody else says,play it and let it help you gain some profit,and if it fails then what the hell it wouldn't be the first or the last.Just because it doesn't last in the long run doesn't mean you won't play any method.There are methods based on a common idea that last in the long run but they need big bankroll,A LOT of playing time if they start go wrong and the profit doesn't woth it so i don't play them.
If you are one of those ones that are testing and testing and waiting for the "ONE" so they would start playing the game and win then...good luck with that too.One last comment for this method...if you have a raising uneven distribution to the EC's sure would work but what if the dominance among EC's starts changing sides more regular than it should?Boom...
but as most of regular members we have tested A LOT of methods so we can say if a method would survive in the long run or not,even if it's not tested with thousands of spins .
I have tested more methods that you could ever dream of.
Just because it doesn't last in the long run doesn't mean you won't play any method
You are wrong here...With my kind of experience + the fact that I am NOT a a gambler , I WOULD NEVER put a chip on a roulette table unless a system is a proven winner.
I have never played roulette with any mathematical or patter system. The only way that I have played roulette was in the old days with VB and RC . Now the wheels aren t like those days.
There are methods based on a common idea that last in the long run but they need big bankroll,A LOT of playing time if they start go wrong and the profit doesn't woth it so i don't play them.
If you will read my TOPIC "what a winning system would look like" you will see that I don't play those methods either...not playable
One last comment for this method...if you have a raising uneven distribution to the ECs sure would work but what if the dominance among ECs starts changing sides more regular than it should?Boom...
Me having this huge experience about the HOW roulette is working , when I see a method the 1st thing that my mind is thinking is WHAT IS THE WICKNESS of this method....and the one you mentioned is the wickness of this method...so don't worry I already know it.
BUT as I already posted in the "DNA OF ROULETTE" Topic , with every method the only way to win is by betting EVERYTHING....but if you do that u will be losing in every spin.....
Every method MUST leave out some unbetted numbers....it can be sleepers , it can be repeaters or patterns or anything..... So roulette is always having the way to bring more the unbetted numbers and all system eventualy are losing....
Put me any method you like and I will imediately tell you that its gonna LOSE because of the X reason.
So what are we going to do? Not explore more because its impossible to be beaten? or go and play for fun and lose money in the long run? I am the type of person that I wouldn t do any of the above.
That s why I posted that when a member is posting things like "This will not work because of .... "
its not something smart....its not something good. If he doesn't like itm then he may not play it.
This is the reason why forums are dead....because some experienced members are posting negative things on all the methods....OK I am experienced too....what does this mean? that i should go in any system topic and say " hey man don't bother this won t work because of ....." .
If an experienced member is STILL in a forum the best thing that he should do it add some comments about how a method can be better and not add comments that any method can t work.....
I am not exited abou this method...or any method.....
How can i say this more clear??? I KNOW THAT ROULETTE IS DESIGNED TO BE UNBEATABLE AND IT DOES THAT BY MATHS ! the ultimate maths !
Ok so what should we do? Close the forums? If you would like this...you wouldn t still be in here....
The hope of the imposible is keeping you in here.....
The INVESTMENT of exploring all these years is keeping you in here....you don't want to beliave that all this investment and all those knowledje was a waste of time and this why you keep being in here.
Anyway now that i told everything I needed I will not post anymore in this forum.... the morality in here isn t the proper one .... no one is testing and everyone is scared of posting any excitement because they are afraid not to be in the eye of the negative members.....
this forum will be completely dead soon like GG and VLS.
Goodbye.
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 14, 05:56 AM 2011
You are wrong here...With my kind of experience + the fact that I am NOT a a gambler , I WOULD NEVER put a chip on a roulette table unless a system is a proven winner.
I have never played roulette with any mathematical or patter system. The only way that I have played roulette was in the old days with VB and RC . Now the wheels aren t like those days.
You'll never have that chance...all roulette tables would be closed...
Roulette explorer
I think that thing is with this is that like all other systems it will fail if it is not based upon logic and sound reasoning, and that is that. So the critisiscm that others offer is just the way that things are and you have to accept it, likewise the systems those others have offered on the forum end in the same way.
However what I think you have to do is to pull up 10 000spins and start hand testing them yourself. By the time you get to 1000 you will have a pretty good idea as to the weak and strong points of your method, (there are subtleties that you wouldn’t get from computer testing) and then you an start tweaking it to suit the way that you personally want to play it, and try for the next 1000 spins, tweak again for the next and so on. Then if you so wish run the tenth version of tweaks through another 10 000 spins. The advantage of this is that by looking at the beast by hand you become more intimate with it and are able to have an understanding as to why it is working and not working which will give you a much greater understanding, and allows you to create something that is custom built to you, and no one else. Although the scheme may fail long term you will then be able to anticipate and manipulate to suit yourself. I hope that is clear. The worst case is that you drop the whole thing altogether.
An example could be John Legends systems, I personally cannot see any logic in them and they are sure losers long term. But he appears to be winning with them because he has spent time playing around with them and plays them to suit himself, should they start to go tits up then he will tweak them until they either start winning again or he drops them.
I am really starting to believe that ultimately the whole thing comes down to ourselves and what we want to do. I believe that the likes of Flat ino and JL who offer systems that are long term losers, win because of their experience of testing and playing, I suspect that the methods that they offer do NOT include other criteria that they use as a matter of course, because of this experience, and it is embedded into their subconscious, and therefore may not even be aware that they are doing certain actions.
Just try and see how you get on, hey also RE having read your last post just chillax and take on board what others say you dont need to be so defensive, also maybe if you were to explore AP methods more you may surprise yourelf as these are based in logic so you have a head start, perhaps you can approach these from a different viewpoint
Mike
Quote from: RouletteExplorer on Aug 14, 05:56 AM 2011
Anyway now that i told everything I needed I will not post anymore in this forum.... the morality in here isn t the proper one .... no one is testing and everyone is scared of posting any excitement because they are afraid not to be in the eye of the negative members.....
This forum will be completely dead soon like GG and VLS.
Goodbye.
Hi RouletteExplorer,
I am saddened to hear of this and how it has occurred. I am sure that I speak for others on this forum when I say that there is no need to leave or stop posting at all... so I genuinely hope after calm consideration you will have a change of mind; there are no problems to return to this forum and continue with your contributions at any time.
Don't let the negatives and negativity spoil anything or put you off your worthy and worthwhile explorations and investigations. I am sure that other members will want the same thing and will want to join in with some testing at some point.
Remember, it is still a relatively new thread and many will perhaps have not have read it or tried your idea yet (or are still in the process of trying it out) - so will be intensely interesting to see any future reports and results that may ensue.. No need for despondency or to give up!
I, for one, are grateful for the sharing of your method and your current findings and it is really to everyone's benefit to see how it will develop under further examination. Even if in the end it proves to be not viable.
There are LOTS of EC systems around. Many members like to play EC systems. This one looks promising. Surely we do not want to kill it off or halt this thread because of a few remarks and a seeming unauthorised hacking incident?
So I say ignore the naysayers, remain optimistic and in the face of any perceived adversity just carry on with your idea and please let us know and keep us informed about the highs (and lows) you find or experience during play.
Thanks,
A.
Hi,
Iggiv wrote:
Quote
U don't understand randomness if u really hope to win on a long run with 3 last winning choices.
Hi Iggiv,
I understand what you're saying but the EC bets reduce when the losing bets happen... Also he is not ALWAYS playing the 3 ECs EVERY spin - sometimes he is only betting ONE EC if required and then maybe the next spin he is betting all three again but then 2 ECs are only staked at 1u...
ALSO, and this is important, he is NOT ALWAYS betting the last 3 winning EC types EITHER!
There is as well a reset to 1-1-1 on a level or new high using the last spun number to restart.
Anyway my test this morning:
100 spins
+24
Highest bet on an EC=10u
I beat RouletteExplorer's current stats by experiencing a run of 45 spins before getting into the profit zone - however some losses due to 0. Had I sidebetted 0 that could have been curtailed to a shorter wait...
A.
"because they are afraid not to be in the eye of the negative members" >>> I have been saying that for years and years. What really sucks, those 'negative members' WIN when we stop posting.
I said it before, if I was in charge I would make a rule like this.......you can NOT put down another method unless that person posts his method and it passes a test of 68 million spins.
Ken
anybody has his right to say what he thinks unless it is abusive. i never was abusive to RouletteExplorer, rather he was to me and F_LAT_INO. Naysayers have their right to say what they want and what they believe. If i don't believe in something i have a right to say it.
i don't understand people who take it on personal level as a sign of hostility. My intention was TO HELP and not to put down any system. So was F_LAT_INO's as i can see. we were friendly and gentlemen in this topic until this guy started fighting
without naysayers like us those forums would be turned into mutual admiration society. clapping your hands to everything and saying "wow, how cool your method is". it makes no sense. healthy friendly criticism is normal, and this is not my fault that some people can't stand it and are not ready for normal human discussion. I don't think it will be a big loss if mr. WiseGuy --RE-- will leave this forum. looks like it is not his first time to get in trouble like this and he will be back under a new nick to astonish the world with his new earth shattering discoveries until somebody else will say something critical about his discoveries and the story will happen again.
I think there are different levels >>
A) A person can suggest some tweaking of a method to the author.
B) A person is rude to the author and needs to be 'warned' to settle down.
C) If a person does not AGREE with a method, dont play it, dont respond.
Ken
due all my respect i don't agree with C)
any person may express some negative ideas if they are not intended to put someone down. For example Chris once wanted to play martingale with dozens and i warned him it is dangerous and later
we got into some kind of quarrel over it but finally he said that i was right and everything settled down.
people should realize that saying something negative about their methods is NORMAL if this is within borders of normal friendly discussion. if someone is too sensitive to normal criticism of his ideas -- it is HIS problem, not a problem of people which don't agree with him. If someone can't handle other opinions then he has something to do to prevent getting in trouble. for example
he can save his ideas for himself or some friends who are always "yes-men" to him.
if u express something publically be ready to face the music.
but for my self i came to conclusion that it is easier to follow the rule C) and just keep silent
instead of trying to help. u try to help and share your ideas -- u got back some crap from
guys like RE who don't need to really listen to somebody else, but rather to themselves and their "yes-men" only
Quotepeople should realize that saying something negative about their methods is NORMAL
I agree 100% mate, my big issue is, I build the bots that kill the methods, so instead of thanks I get called negative, maths head etc. There are some people that get stuck in a rut with methods that are doomed to fail @ some point as they don't want to believe the outcome, they rely on luck alone, oh yes, and timing lol.
We are all after the same result, remember that.
yes, but u can believe whatever u want. Once Steve said a good phrase something like if someone states that he can defeat roulette with woodoo, i don't mind as long as he does not attack others. "Wiseguys" can believe whatever they want, but if i say NO to their beliefs, that's no reason to call me negative, blame me for some forum problems and so on. That's a matter of exchanging opinions. And it is not my obligation to shut up, though i feel i will have to -- to avoid this hassle with "wiseguys". Let them believe what they want and clap hands with "yesmen", admiring their "winning" methods. Too much headache trying to help them to sober up a little. Let's them win on a short run and lose on a long run, who cares anymore.
Don't want to go into the behavioural psychology area regarding criticism and how people deal with it - or control of emotions and mental attitudes. We can all choose to join with the positive or negative about a situation. A person must decide for themselves. We must all be careful not to hold fast to erroneous attitudes or false conclusions. It helps us and others to make rational and realistic decisions and align with a healthy, constructive environment.
I am keeping an open mind on this until proof otherwise, so my mental viewpoint is for the present quite neutral in this respect.
If this method can deliver regular winnings without great losses then surely no bad thing. Nobody is claiming it's the holy one or anything; but at least it might turn out to be classed as a "good" system nevertheless.
We have all heard of the positive and the negative and the balance of forces. This applies also to numbers and results in Roulette. Just MAYBE within this system RouletteExplorer has discovered something with a propensity to capitalise on the trending/equilibrium effect of outcomes as the game continually strives to maintain balance and harmony?
Everything in nature that is material or non-material has to ADAPT to fit into the overarching Great Pattern of existence and maintain a balance.
Maybe this can work well in general without too large drawdowns for most of the time?
Would be great to see a graph of how it fares visually using a RX script over large volume of spins.
For sure, we can post our positive result sessions in a hope that we are not supporting what may inevitably turn out in the fullness of time to be a mistaken or miscontrued theory; a bot or RX system programmed correctly can easily and quickly show up and highlight any false hopes or delusional errors of thinking and deliver the final proof and truth of the matter.
Let's not be prejudiced and reject out of hand without a fair trial - but also let us not labour under any misapprehensions or hold distorted unreasonable expectations.
What is needed is a more closer analysis, more extensive testing and then the informed judgements can be made with confidence so we shall know what's what.
A.
i don't mind
I was going to bot it but R_E hasnt explained it too clear, if I can't read a post once and get the picture I can't be a$$ed re reading it, and I hate asking for clarification as it makes me look dumb LMAO anyway, I get the jist but whats this meant to mean
QuoteIf we lose its because the 2 or all the 3 lost. so that means that now all the Ecs or the 2 of the 3 are EQUAL.
If all are equal
if all are equal thats 3 what do we do if only 2 are equal? the same or what?
Quotee.g. If the RED 10 and the BLACK 14 = we bet 4 chips on BLACK .(most dominiand)
I see RED 10 and BLACK 14, to me thats 1 of each, why does he say
BLACK .(most dominiand) QuoteIF EVEN is 12 and Odd 12 = NO BET on even/odd
Whats the 12 about, 12 what?
Superman i'll make it easy for you...track odd/even,red/black,high/low...calculate the difference between them so if odd numbers are more thank even numbers calculate odd-even and vice versa...this number is the number of units we bet on the dominant EC(In this case we bet (odd-even) units to odd EC.If there is a balance to an EC we bet nothing cause outcome is 0.You do that for every EC separately.Whenever we are in new profit we start over,we erase all the previous outcomes and we restart calculations with the new spun numbers.Hope i helped...
Hi superman,
I will try and explain it as I understand it.
It is actually quite simple to play and believe it or not you don't have to chart it or make calculations once you get the hang of it...
Let's say the last number is 17 BLACK.
You start off and follow the sides of the ECs and make the first bet of 1u on Black, Odd and Low.
Let's say the next number is 23 RED. You lost on Black and Low - but won on Odd.
You played 3 units and you got returned 2 units so overall you are -1 unit.
Now because you're behind (so cannot reset yet) it means for the next bet you increase by +1 on the winning EC - so you will play 2u on the winning ODD EC. As regards the other 2 ECs they lost so were reduced by 1u to 0u. They were neutralised by the opposite side occurring - so no bet is struck on those 2 now until there is a new "leader".
Let's say the next number is 10 BLACK. You lost 2u on ODD so overall you are still behind and stand at -3 units.
For the next bet we REDUCE by -1 on ODD because it lost and now play 1 unit on ODD (despite the even occurring, the odd numbers are still leading) and since Black and Low appeared we can now reinstate the bet of 1u on those ECs as well because they are now leading too! So for this bet it is 1u on all 3 ECs: B O and L
Now we have number 10 BLACK again. We played three units and got returned four so the overall balance improves to -2. Since we won on Black and Low those bets are upped +1 to 2u each. The Odd bet lost and is reduced by 1u to 0u - which means both sides of that EC are level (since we started) so we don't bet on ODD or EVEN this time - just the Black and Low EC @ 2u each...
Next number is 8 BLACK. We won both bets and win 4units which makes our total now +2.
This is a new plus high so we can rule off there and restart the system right from the beginning
and use the last number to bet with the start stake of 1u-1u-1u. (on B E L)
You increase by 1u on a winning bet; decrease by 1u on a losing bet.
If an EC calls for a 0u bet then no bet is made on it that spin - but after the following spin result you reinstate whatever occurs on the no-bets @1u as it/they will be the new "leaders" for the respective EC.
When/If you get to level or ahead you reset to 1-1-1.
A.
PS. RouletteExplorer states this OPTIONAL play and it seems good thing to include:
Quote
Add on to the system is that if there is a stage that we have to bet more than *9 chips* on a spin I am betting the zero.
I am not betting the zero straight.....
If for e.g.. I have to bet on the bets RED ODD HIGH and i have to bet more than 9 chips then I am also covering the split 0-2/ (because 2 is not red or odd or hight) . so with that i am not only winning if zero comes but i also have covered 1 more number that its NOT in the main Ecs bet,,.,.
The 0-2 was just an example....it could be 0-1 or 0-3 split if the betting on the Ecs was different....
You could also bet the trio 0-1-2 if the main bet is less than 10 chips....
I can say that with this add on, this system is one the safests .And very nice profits.
sorry...
Quote from: iggiv on Aug 14, 04:20 PM 2011
well well. who could have thought :)
This comment was not called for .....
If you have something that works every time you walk up to a table, please provide it so we all can benefit.
Mr Ore,
Wow! That was quick work to produce that graph.
RouletteExplorer PM'd me to say that it is not possible to lose 1,100 chips in 2000 spins and that there may be some kind of discrepancy....
As I do not know why - and also have no way of telling if your model is constructed correctly, I sincerely hope that RE will return and explain why he thinks it cannot be right.
I am certain nobody would be against that and that he can be welcomed back to continue the discussion.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Aug 14, 06:39 PM 2011
Mr Ore,
Wow! That was quick work to produce that graph.
RouletteExplorer PM'd me to say that it is not possible to lose 1,100 chips in 2000 spins and that there may be some kind of discrepancy....
As I do not know why - and also have no way of telling if your model is constructed correctly, I sincerely hope that RE will return and explain why he thinks it cannot be right.
I am certain nobody would be against that and that he can be welcomed back to continue the discussion.
A.
This is the reason why there is so little coders for roulette...
no one belive results and always trolling how charts are "immposible"....
and all the coders are becomming public enemys.
Quote from: ophis on Aug 14, 07:16 PM 2011
This is the reason why there is so little coders for roulette...
no one belive results and always trolling how charts are "immposible"....
and all the coders are becomming public enemys.
that's not true.
only a weird self centered person would blame a coder for his stuff not working well.
u know that what u have been doing here i
s appreciated
It does matter what you test your system on. There is somewhere a file of 700k spins from Wiesbaden, and there is a big fluctuation on red in maybe first 4000 spins or so with positive parts even if it is a zero roulette, then for the rest of spins it goes "as usually" and results are comparable with RNG. RNG can also produce those parts, but they are really RARE. If you test your system on a bad set of spins, you can have good results. Fair RNG rules when it comes to testing roulette system.
QuoteFair RNG rules when it comes to testing roulette system
Agreed, thanks for saving me time yet again mr.ore
Quote from: ophis on Aug 14, 07:16 PM 2011
This is the reason why there is so little coders for roulette...
no one belive results and always trolling how charts are "immposible"....
and all the coders are becomming public enemys.
They are certainly not my ENEMY! :)
I personally am not saying I don't believe the results. I haven't said that at all - and also I join with others in appreciating and thanking those coders and bot makers eg: ophis, mr. ore and superman etc. who have the programming ability to test these things speedily. They are a valuable asset to our community with a great and needed service that can save us wasting a lot of time needlessly by testing over the large and fair samples. Like somebody said: we are all after the same thing.
Again, if necessary I hope that RE will return and discuss these findings if there IS any more left to discuss.
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Aug 15, 03:45 AM 2011
Again, if necessary I hope that RE will return and discuss these findings if there IS any more left to discuss.
A.
--You can find him at Casino Guide Zone with the same idea.