Grassroots-1,2,3 A dozens idea

[RouletteGhost]

Sounds like I am picking at you but seriously I'm not

You can't say this without proof. I don't believe it does from proof of testing. Why do you believe it does?

They have to act different. They are positioned differently. Dozens are spread out differently so different patterns will arise

[RouletteGhost]

I find it hard to believe that everyone testing is testing wrong because they arent testing hundreds of thousands drazen.

[Orochi]

I think enough is enough, i saw someone winning 830â,¬ than loosing 1800â,¬ playing this way.

See the test for yourserf !!!


Just go to analyzer sheet! than press "clear" and then "simulate"

[hermbob]

The only thing im encouraging people to do is test this thing and form their own conclusions which they are

To be fair (and I'm not picking on you or blaming you for anything...I certainly made my own decisions and I got my ass kicked because of it)...you're doing much more than this.

You have called this a holy grail. Several times. You started a different thread about a different bet selection and called it a holy grail too. You've called several variations of "grassroots" holy grails. You've boasted about the $4k tv's you'll be buying with your winnings because this is a holy grail.

Hell, I'm not even sure what the final decision is in terms of bet selection. Or for which wheel. I'd love to know. But the A.D.D. in this thread is getting a bit tiresome. Every time we start testing one and call it a holy grail...it's, "wait a minute, this new one is a holy grail!" If we've labeled so many things holy grails, why can't we pick one and formally define it, with bankroll/buy-in requirements, etc.

Unfortunately, I'm now living proof that this does fail. It can fail spectacularly. See my previous post a few pages back. Perhaps I made some mistakes. Or perhaps it just happened to fail early for me, and if I were to play long enough I'd recoup everything. Perhaps it wouldn't. But the bottom line is that calling something (actually, SO MANY THINGS) a holy grail so many times when plain logic says it can't be is foolish and leads people to get excited about something they shouldn't be getting excited about...at least until it's finally fleshed out. I should have known better.

Bottom line is that bet selection/MM is somewhat in line with a martingale it seems. Martingales work great....until they don't. It's a good thing that the marty is capped though....but variance will eventually come in to play and there will be a losing stretch...or stretches, that eats in to your bankroll or puts you well in to the red. It's just whether or not you'll be LUCKY enough to be well ahead by then and can withstand such a scenario.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving up on this, and we could very well be on to something here. I just can't let the comment that "all you're doing is encouraging people to test" go. I think tempering the spastic excitement a bit and honing in on what exactly we're doing, might a good thing for this thread and for all of us moving forward.

[RouletteGhost]

I think enough is enough, i saw someone winning 830â,¬ than loosing 1800â,¬ playing this way.

See the test for yourserf !!!


Just go to analyzer sheet! than press "clear" and then "simulate"

Playing which way?

[keepontryin]

rg maybe you can explain one more time the best way to play grassroots as you see it now

[Still]

Im approcahing 2000 mechanical hand tested spins of real numbers. Im satisfied

That would be about what Ignatus does within first couple days of a new idea, but with charts, and without all the fanfare.  Here, 100 spins, a week of hype.  A few dollars down, promises to journal about more dollars down, but instead another 100 spins and a week of advice on the merits of various tweaks, tested at the rate of about 100 a week. 

If you have one loss in 100 spins, then yes, you will win this game.  Even every 80 spins, you win.  72 spins is break-even.  Without math, there must be much more than 5000 spins to determine the expected frequency of this, if this is a phenomenon that breaks out of maths paradigms. 

Someone did post 60k of spins data, from which celescliff deduced that if you bet against the last three to repeat, you are always betting against a much rarer event with the same money.  Logically, that is the way to go then, but you have drug your feet on it, somehow glued to the magic of 1-2-3 on American wheels, walking from one air-ball machine to the next after a few spins or a couple of wins. 

It has reached a point where i've been tempted to start a parody/satire thread in the humor section titled Stressboots - 1,2,3  A doozy idea.

Celescliff's tests are the only content left here, but even then, the number of spins is not near enough what it needs to be for serious play.  I played for fun at a local B&M last night and dropped 8 units ($8 dollars) in 13 mini-games (about 40 spins), with two 8 unit losses, avoiding one 26 unit loss.   Indicative, but not conclusive. 

  Maybe you could spend less time on youtube inviting wholesale gamber/entertainers to this forum, and more on working up an Excel sheet based on 5000 spins from any trusted source you choose.   Whenever in doubt, just ask, what would Ignatus do in this situation? 

Still

[Turner]

They have to act different. They are positioned differently. Dozens are spread out differently so different patterns will arise

"they have to act different" isnt proof my friend.

Test 1000000 spins euro and US

See how many times dozens hit. It will be roughly same give or take 50 or so.
Same for both wheels. Only difference is they pay you less on US wheel 2.7% less. Thats it.

You cant justify something by saying "they have to act differently"

You really cant.

[RouletteGhost]

Few misconceptions about what im doing

1. Im trying to help

2. Im not saying this is the GRAIL. Im saying this is grailish based on what im SEEING

3. Relax on me. Ive spent many hours testing this.

4. I only say its grailish because ive hand tested up to 2000 spins from zumma and its been a great success. You guys see my charts in this thread? I keep seeing that. Ive never tested a method this long with this much suceess. Why wouldnt i promote it? You have seen my charts! You dont test thousands of spins successfully then put it on the back burner and say its just another method.

5. Others have the same results

Out of all the methods ive tested on this forum this method has the largest win streak out of any method ive seen here. Show me a better one? Im all ears/eyes

Its all about how its played. As a straight marty it can fail. Has to be played smart

Most of you saying it can fail and will fail probably havent tested the variations for yourselves? Just speculating?

Ill leave it here

[RouletteGhost]

That would be about what Ignatus does within first couple days of a new idea, but with charts, and without all the fanfare.  Here, 100 spins, a week of hype.  A few dollars down, promises to journal about more dollars down, but instead another 100 spins and a week of advice on the merits of various tweaks, tested at the rate of about 100 a week. 

If you have one loss in 100 spins, then yes, you will win this game.  Even every 80 spins, you win.  72 spins is break-even.  Without math, there must be much more than 5000 spins to determine the expected frequency of this, if this is a phenomenon that breaks out of maths paradigms. 

Someone did post 60k of spins data, from which celescliff deduced that if you bet against the last three to repeat, you are always betting against a much rarer event with the same money.  Logically, that is the way to go then, but you have drug your feet on it, somehow glued to the magic of 1-2-3 on American wheels, walking from one air-ball machine to the next after a few spins or a couple of wins. 

It has reached a point where i've been tempted to start a parody/satire thread in the humor section titled Stressboots - 1,2,3  A doozy idea.

Celescliff's tests are the only content left here, but even then, the number of spins is not near enough what it needs to be for serious play.  I played for fun at a local B&M last night and dropped 8 units ($8 dollars) in 13 mini-games (about 40 spins), with two 8 unit losses, avoiding one 26 unit loss.   Indicative, but not conclusive. 

  Maybe you could spend less time on youtube inviting wholesale gamber/entertainers to this forum, and more on working up an Excel sheet based on 5000 spins from any trusted source you choose.   Whenever in doubt, just ask, what would Ignatus do in this situation? 

Still

I didnt drag my feet on it

I did many tests against previous 3....and i like it.......

Good on him for winning with it

[hermbob]

Few misconceptions about what im doing

1. Im trying to helpappreciate that, so let's hone in what exactly "grassroots" will be moving forward

2. Im not saying this is the GRAIL. Im saying this is grailish based on what im SEEING yea, you are; you have said that it is, several times..."folks this is a HG"

3. Relax on me. Ive spent many hours testing this. testing what? which variation? which bet selection is better than the other? is 1, 3 better than 1, 3, 9?

4. I only say its grailish because ive hand tested up to 2000 spins from zumma and its been a great success. You guys see my charts in this thread? I keep seeing that. Ive never tested a method this long with this much suceess. Why wouldnt i promote it? You have seen my charts! You dont test thousands of spins successfully then put it on the back burner and say its just another method. again, which bet selection are we choosing and running from with all these charts?

5. Others have the same results yea, and there's about 50 variations of bet selection and MM; how is anything conclusive when this is the case?

Out of all the methods ive tested on this forum this method has the largest win streak out of any method ive seen here. Show me a better one? Im all ears/eyes again, this is great, but logic says that this WILL work...until it doesn't. i'm sure you're experienced enough to have this logic in mind based on past results

Its all about how its played. As a straight marty it can fail. Has to be played smart not even sure what this means exactly

Most of you saying it can fail and will fail probably havent tested the variations for yourselves? Just speculating? unfortunately, i have; and i lost. a lot

Ill leave it here can't wait to see where this thread goes from here

[MrJ]

"like I havnt tested putting my hand in a lions mouth using 1000 lions and a range of other Big Cats.
No need" >>> OMG I almost fell off my chair.

Ken

[Orochi]

Playing against previous 3 dozens u have the bets odds.

The expected lost always be 1 in 44 spins, and this dont include zero.

How could u possible win in long term !?

[MrJ]

@RG >> You have to learn the lesson I did years ago. Post your method (idea) and thats that, let it be. No titles of HG etc.

Post it...done...move on.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

@RG >> You have to learn the lesson I did years ago. Post your method (idea) and thats that, let it be. No titles of HG etc.

Post it...done...move on.

Ken

Yes. I see.

I dont understand why member still personally attacked me and said why dont i test on excell instead of inviting youtube entertainers. Those youtube roulette vids are funny. What we cant have some fun either? Shit