Turn the odds in your favor??

[GLC]

I have just tested this according to Norman Squire's method and was at +67 when I started on downward spiral that caused me to quit when I was at -125 units.  That was a 192 unit swing and I was betting 13 units per spin and was still 15 spins behind even.

This is the problem with negative progressions.  When they go bad, they can really go bad.

Be careful with any bet method like this.

[furple]

George have you tried using this betting method with Decision before last? This way you only have to watch out for the terrible 2's. Just a thought.

[VIP]

"""If anyone has a better bet selection method than follow-the-last, I'm all ears."""

Please George...A roulette researcher of ur level should know by now that THERE ARE NO GOOD OR BAD BET SELECTIONS.

All the power of any system comes from the Money Managment (progressions).


Funny that this Norman Squire has spoken about this progression ... because after I read ur 1st post in this Topic ,the 1st progression Idea was exactly the same as his.

But this idea alone can not stand.....
Simply because in order to be in profit ,the loses must come even with the wins...and we don t know if this will happen in our sessions every time

So as u may understood my tweek in this is to be in profit even when the losses will be by 1/3 more than the wins....this is the key!

I am working on it to find the best possible way for us to need less BR.

[albalaha]

Please George...A roulette researcher of your level should know by now that THERE ARE NO GOOD OR BAD BET SELECTIONS.

Sorry, I beg to differ. Bet selection is also very crucial.

[GLC]

Please George...A roulette researcher of your level should know by now that THERE ARE NO GOOD OR BAD BET SELECTIONS.

Here's an Even Chance selection method that I should know is neither good nor bad, but right now it's being very good.

We are playing for doubles.

If we have RRRB  we play for the B to become another B. If it does we have
RRRBB that's the double we were playing for so now we play  against 3 B's so we play for Red to show.
If it does we have RRRBBR so we play for Red to become a double.
Let's say it doesn't, we will have RRRBBRB so we play for B to become a double.
Let's say it does so we will have RRRBBRBB.
Now we play for Red to show.  Let's say it doesn't.  Now we haveRRRBBRBBB.
Since we have an odd number of B's we play for the 3rd B to become a double.

So anytime we have an odd number of a color we play for another one which will make it a double.

The thing that can hurt us is a long series of singles.  If we have 4 singles in a row, we will stop playing for doubles and start playing for the singles to continue.  As soon as they stop, we will have a double, so we play for a change of color.

Simple and so far very effective.

I'm not suggesting that this will never have a streak from hell.  They all do.  But, see how you like this.  Can't be any worse than anyone else's method, can it?

George

[warrior]

i have done a test on doubles before only doubles ,and on 3000 placed bets flat betting i was plus 28.hpoe this helps.

[VIP]

If there were such a thing as "better bet selections" then we wouldn t need any progressions.....Flat would be enough.

Keep in mind also that If there was a better bet selection Charles Scammer would be the real deal!
But as you all found out AT LAST....he is a scamer

Bet Selections is the biggest gambling fallacy.,.....and you all know it deep down....HOW???
Because all these years in all the roulette forums there were never a flat betting method that could win in th elong term.....

Not that there was a progression method that could win ....LOL

[GLC]

If there were such a thing as "better bet selections" then we wouldn t need any progressions.....Flat would be enough.

Keep in mind also that If there was a better bet selection Charles scammer would be the real deal!
But as you all found out AT LAST....he is a scamer

Bet Selections is the biggest gambling fallacy.,.....and you all know it deep down....HOW???
Because all these years in all the roulette forums there were never a flat betting method that could win in the elong term.....

Not that there was a progression method that could win ....LoL

VIP,

You're killin' us.  If we accept the above post as absolute truth, how can we beat this silly game.

I like interacting with all (?) you guys and gals, but I do have an ulterior motive for being here.  To win!!

George

[chrisbis]

Good on U George.  

Bout time that defining statement was made, in which ever post U would like to imagine it was  posted.

It should   be the opening "Mission Statement" in EVERY NEW TOPIC.  

[attachimg=#]

Or, else, like U say George my brother.........................................what's the point!!!!!! ?  

[GLC]

Good on you George.  

Bout time that defining statement was made, in which ever post you would like to imagine it was  posted.

It should   be the opening "Mission Statement" in EVERY NEW TOPIC.  

[attachimg=#]

Or, else, like you say George my brother.........................................what's the point!!!!!! ?  

Christopher my friend,

I feel a little outclassed by your post.

Mine are so drab and yours are so well WILD.  There, I used capital letters.  So take that!
and a smiley to boot.

g

[chrisbis]

They are only wild cause I forgot to use the inverted comma's George.



Oh dam bugger muck and shite, I've gone and spoilt my 1111 post for today now....................
.
.
.
.
.
.
but as they say on some of the best adverts George...................................U're worth it.!
#
Silly nonsense. You're worth it.


(wild indeed, I haven't even got any hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

[GLC]

One final note on this system.

I tested it against session 7 from Bayes under the topic "Beating Roulette with Math" and gave up when I was down more than 1000 units.

There were 49 more losses in that string of spins than wins.

Beware, this is not the Holy Grail.

LOL,

G