Vaddis Holy Grail

[Elite]

4 on repeaters and 4 on singles.
hit on repeater - bet 2 on repeaters and 6 on singles
hit on repeater - bet 1 on repeaters and 7 on singles.

the same applies to the hits on singles.
basically adjustments made after each hit on repeater or single.
while testing I made over 1000 units than reached -200 and didn't had a profit in 8 spin cycles of 37 spins.According to Vaddis instructions profit should be made mach earlier.
Hope this info will help .

Vaadi said, if doubles are dropping you are there, if singles are dropping you are there, but as per above, if doubles are dropping we are moving to singles, and if singles are dropping we are moving to doubles,

[Kan@am@]

Vaadi said, if doubles are dropping you are there, if singles are dropping you are there, but as per above, if doubles are dropping we are moving to singles, and if singles are dropping we are moving to doubles,

yes, but doubles and singles are still there .you never go less then one left on doubles or singles.

[Irish88]

What if you did the stepped process with the wheel neighbors? One you get to 16 numbers, if it misses you drop the furthest back pair. So you are betting 16 numbers till a new high or break even. Then reset.

American wheel
7-play 11-20
13-play 1-36

I have been testing this way and it seems to do well. I am just thinking about how Vaddi says bet each number 8 times. So once it reaches the 9th position on the marquee you drop that number pair.

[Proofreaders2000]

Piggybacking on Irish88's Idea
==============================
Note the newest spin-value.

Bet the last decision spin-value and its Vaddi pair.  If miss,
bet the last bet and the current outcome + its Vaddi pair.

Repeat steps until win or drawdown of -30 units.

Example: #30 (newest spin-value)

Bet 30,31:                            1.) 5(x)-2

Bet 30,31,5,6:                      2.) 12(x)-4

Bet 30,31,5,6,12,13....

[Bigbroben]

Ok I ran another test of 1000 spins, only betting 8 nrs.  Never more, flat.
Step1 as a start and always step1 on breakeven or new high.  The good runs on step1 are paying.
Once the 8nr-no hit is reached, I let roll, delete the older, add the new.  On a hit, I removed the nr and played the +1 neighbour, or the -1 if it was taken already.

There was once that the recovery did not make it, although almost (540 whereas the high was 569).  Probably should have resumed to step 1 then since it had been a long step2.  And it slowly slided down.

Working right now on some tuning, but still interesting with only max 8 nrs.

[Still]

Nice work Still. Here is yesterday's table 2 at Wiesbaden.

Ok thanks for the data.  Those 142 spins settled at -180 with a low of -208.   

It does seem to help a little to cut off betting after 7-9 steps.  That would have settled these spins at around -130, and would have helped the previous set up to +219.   

These 142 spin results however do appear to be within the expected drawdown parameters going by some of Jono's results. 

[Still]

Nice work Still. Here is yesterday's table 2 at Wiesbaden.

Ok, so i went ahead and used RANDBETWEEN() data from Excel just to test this and i examined 33,000 spins for a total sum of 378, or 3.6 units per 314 spin session (105 sessions).  This was where i was cutting off betting after 8 steps, because when i started testing the 12 steps it appeared to be random for the first 3k spins or ten sessions.  The good news, if any, is that based on the volume of betting going into it, there should be a loss of 5,000 units for these 33k spins (based on total volume x 2.7% house edge).    So maybe there's something to this, and maybe it could be used for comps.   

[Mako]

You guys are doing such great work in this thread lately, can't thank you enough for all of your efforts.  Very interesting to say the least, it feels to me that the approach on the whole is closer than we've ever been because for once the more analytical members are staying focused on what David actually said instead of going off on wild tangents.

It's actually made me a bit concerned that one of you already HAS gotten to 90%+ of the central idea at play in his method and possibly have disqualified it due to testing with RNG-based numbers.

If you're using Excel as your base test platform, make sure you're doing it with numbers you're inputting from downloaded spins from single tables, single wheels, single days.   

I always just use Spielbank Duisburg spins as they're easy to get, but so long as you know the source of the spins you can use any: link:s://permanenzen.westspiel.de/default.aspx?casino=42

The General also is a great source of spins, particularly 00-Wheel spins from single tables, single days at American casinos, feel free to contact him as he's happy to provide them (shocking to some of you I'm sure, but he's always willing to help destroy fallacy systems, which is what he considers all of these endeavors...  ).

If you're using RS as your base testing platform, or the high quality of Random.org's RNG, I'm not sure how you're ever going to get the result you're after.  It's all about the wheel to me, has nothing to do with the table, and all of the table hints in Vaddi's thread were just one of the false paths he installed to protect the method.

The pairs, the splits, everything he details, is about the wheel.  The table is an artificial construct, it has no impact on play, which is why no street or quad or line or split-based table method has ever been talked about as being a grail by the "celebrity" posters (Vaddi, Turbo, Dyksexlic, 6th-Sense, etc).

The few people I know who ARE winning with real money over an extended period of time are not using table-based methods,  all of them utilize whatever the wheel is showing them at that particular moment to determine their play.

Keep up the great work here, it's so interesting to see how all of your sharp minds are approaching a single problem.  Love it! 

[Still]

Ok, so i went ahead and used RANDBETWEEN() data from Excel just to test this and i examined 33,000 spins for a total sum of 378, or 3.6 units per 314 spin session (105 sessions).  This was where i was cutting off betting after 8 steps, because when i started testing the 12 steps it appeared to be random for the first 3k spins or ten sessions.  The good news, if any, is that based on the volume of betting going into it, there should be a loss of 5,000 units for these 33k spins (based on total volume x 2.7% house edge).    So maybe there's something to this, and maybe it could be used for comps.   

I did 16k more RandBetween() spins with 12 steps and get an average loss of -32 units per 314 spin session (51 sessions).  The loss should be about 48 units per the total betting volume in each session.  So it doesn't appear that more steps (12) are better than 8 steps, which gains 3.6 units per session over 151 sessions, whereas it too should lose about 48 units per session. 

[Mako]

When you have a margin of 12 holes, 4 unique, play those 4 unique and their 4 paired, you will be playing 8 in a space of 12, 4 only that can repeat and 4 not left, that can come out.

Of 24, then the same but with 8 and of 36 the same but with 12.

I'm saying too much guys, I've probably said the most important thing to open everyone's mind, surely many will continue to say that I do not contribute anything, but I just contributed more than all the clues that are given in this forum, only with this comment.

I know they're going to get it, I just ask that the one who gets it, do not follow it openly in the forum but hundreds of people will know, whatever they discover they can talk about with me.

This is good, like it. 

No one is going to say you're not contributing if you post actual information that can be tested like the above.  It's the other stuff, posting very vague comments with nothing but a small spin count chart that irritates people and makes them question your credibility.

Lately you're made an effort to provide more actual information about what you personally believe the method to encompass, and that's much better than your previous help.  Keep it up. 

[Still]

It's actually made me a bit concerned that one of you already HAS gotten to 90%+ of the central idea at play in his method and possibly have disqualified it due to testing with RNG-based numbers.

Could be.  With RNG for example, with a neighbors system (betting each side of the last spin), the distribution of numbers between 0 and 36 is different than on the wheel. For example, on the wheel, a numerical incremental neighbor is actually located almost somewhere on the other side of the wheel, distributing bets more spread out around the wheel.  With RNG neighbors, the bets are localized around the last numbers, not really distributed evenly around the distance between 0 and 36.   

One possible solution, if this is the problem, is to set up look up tables that help distribute bets (between 0 and 36) more like you'd see on a wheel.   My lookup tables are currently set to spread out bets as numerical neighbors, which may be an entirely different bird.

Edited couple of corrections.

[6th-sense]

wheel layout

[6th-sense]

AND ALWAYS USE REAL SPIN DATA

[6th-sense]

AND ALWAYS USE REAL SPIN DATA

more spins

[6th-sense]

more spins