If you have a winning strategy, this proposal is for you.

[The General]

Attempting to "read randomness" is like looking for patterns in the clouds, and both are just as useless when playing roulette.

I've got a dollar that says that RouletteGhost's system can handily beat Gizmo's.

[gizmotron2]

Thanks for the endorsement Snowman. I can always use a disparaging comment from you. If you don't like it then it for sure has a chance.

[junscissorhands]

More like reading Cauliflowers, Caleb 

[SWEET]

Hi Ozon,
Here a very simple strategy you may test ...that I learned from a member....(with permission)


Double dozen bet.
The progression=1u for 100spins, 2 for next 100, 4 u for next 100spins, stop at profit.

When last =dz1, bet dz1&2,
When last =dz2, bet dz2&3,
When last=dz3, bet dz3&1,
When zero hit, disregard, and take previous last as indicator.

Virtual bet till negative -20u in first 50spins, then bet with the said progression, till 300th spin...or profit.
Cut loss at -20u.

[RouletteGhost]

Seeet, thanks for sharing a method

It’s a relief

Everyone wants to goto PM or pretend they have something but won’t share it (we know they are lying)

Thanks!

[gizmotron2]

Attempting to "read randomness" is like looking for patterns in the clouds, and both are just as useless when playing roulette.

I've got a dollar that says that RouletteGhost's system can handily beat Gizmo's.

I just got done with another two and one half hour training session with student #1. It's starting to get to a point that standard deviation won't allow it to recover to the expectation of a session ratio of 2.33 to 1. He starts each day now by doing 10 sessions in front of me while we also discuss what the statistics of what he is doing means in terms of ratios. While he is doing that I wrote a sim that just blindly bets on Red only on the single zero wheel. After 100,000 sessions run it determined that with the zero the win loss ratio for sessions won or lost was 1.8 to 1. I took the zero out and ran it again. This time it came out at 2.33 to 1.

That is the exact number my method needs to break even. Now my method includes the zero and it needs to balance at 2.33 to 1 in order to break even. But the House edge comes out to 1.8 to 1 in power testing the large number value. So in reality, my method must beat 1.8 to 1 to prove it's better than the statistical large number average.

Today student #1 had 9 wins and 1 loss today. So now the testing is up to 52 wins and 10 losses for a session's lost or won ratio of 5.2 to 1. Now this is not some mechanical system testing. The student is running real challenges to beat randomness by reading it and guessing. There is no prediction being used either.

You guys will have to grasp onto the last possible explanation here and that is that it's a wild lucky streak. So start pilling on about how this is just a small sample and that it proves nothing. I can wipe out everything with this knowledge. I can make you skeptics eat crow. But my plan is to get a small army around the world to make that happen. I don't want anything from them either. They are free to go get what they can for as long as they can and keep it all for themselves. This is certainly better than what Ed Thorp did to Blackjack. He was a total blabbermouth. Let's hear it Dr., General, Xander, Snowman, Caleb, etc...