Golden Peak

[denzie]

So you bet 1+2+3+4+5.............+18 =171u
And you wanna recover that with going backwards? 


And if a # wakes up finally  (you lost money on it) you stop betting it ? 

How many sessions you tested this ?

[Blue_Angel]

I didn't say bet on the 23 for the next 600 spins and you didn't answer me. What would you do and WHY?

Ken

This kind of question is very hypothetical, it's like asking what would you do if you were wearing a dress in public...I'd never done such a thing so I don't know what "correct" answer are you looking for, if there is any.

[MrJ]

This kind of question is very hypothetical, it's like asking what would you do if you were wearing a dress in public...I'd never done such a thing so I don't know what "correct" answer are you looking for, if there is any.

I guess it comes down to opinion?? ...and the question can be for anyone, I'm not picking on you alone. If I was at the CASINO and I knew the 23 slept for 300 spins, then hit. I would cream my shorts $$$$$

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

So you bet 1+2+3+4+5.............+18 =171u
And you wanna recover that with going backwards? 


And if a # wakes up finally  (you lost money on it) you stop betting it ? 

How many sessions you tested this ?

Recovery doesn't has to be completed within the same cycle.

Perhaps you didn't understand that after 18 repeaters without achieving new BR high, I'm not continuing  with the repeaters but with the remaining sleepers.

Yes, after each hit on every sleeper I'm removing it from my bet selection, a dead weight does not have to be carried along the way.

Everything I'm saying comes from my experience, about the "GP", I've tried it for many thousands spins.

Different opinions are welcome regardless if I would agree or not.

[Blue_Angel]

I guess it comes down to opinion?? ...and the question can be for anyone, I'm not picking on you alone. If I was at the CASINO and I knew the 23 slept for 300 spins, then hit. I would cream my shorts $$$$$

Ken

I assume the best possible way to exploit this is to go for just one more hit, correct ?

[MrJ]

I assume the best possible way to exploit this is to go for just one more hit, correct ?

Now dont be mad (here come the attacks).....I won't answer that per say. Yes, I would bet it again but the DETAILS, I have no comments. I worked too hard to simply hand s**t out but if it helps (and I hope it does), please dont drop that number.

Ken

[Steve]

The odds of winning on the next spin haven't changed, at all. So changing bets won't change anything. Thinking otherwise is classic fallacy. Its not mere opinion.

[Blue_Angel]

The odds of winning on the next spin haven't changed, at all. So changing bets won't change anything. Thinking otherwise is classic fallacy. Its not mere opinion.

Selecting the one instead of the other could make the whole difference between winners and losers.

Therefore your statement is invalid.

[Steve]

Selecting the one instead of the other could make the whole difference between winners and losers. Therefore your statement is invalid.

No, because whether you select one or the other, the odds of one or the other happening are still the same. For example: red or black, black or red.

[Blue_Angel]

No, because whether you select one or the other, the odds of one or the other happening are still the same. For example: red or black, black or red.

The payout always remains the same but will hit only one, not both, that's why there are losers and winners, you cannot have the one without the other.

[Steve]

Correct but that doesnt change the fact the odds dont change. So you dont know, with any increase in accuracy, which will win or lose. So of the odds dont change, and the payouts dont change, then nothing has changed. Still negative expectation.

[Blue_Angel]

Correct but that doesnt change the fact the odds dont change. So you dont know, with any increase in accuracy, which will win or lose. So of the odds dont change, and the payouts dont change, then nothing has changed. Still negative expectation.

Of course, prediction accuracy is the key, that's why bets have to move around from time to time and not to be like sitting ducks.

[Steve]

bets have to move around from time to time and not to be like sitting ducks

Ok, but WHY would moving bets around increase the accuracy of predictions?

[Blue_Angel]

Ok, but WHY would moving bets around increase the accuracy of predictions?

Have you ever seen a sequence like this: 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1...?

Results are altering, thus a flexible bet selection which can be adjusted to the ever changing roulette flows is a must.

[Steve]

Have you ever seen a sequence like this: 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

Not exactly that, but its irrelevant. The probability of 1,1,1 is exactly the same as 1,2,3 or 1,1,2 or 2,2,2, or 3,2,1. The probability is not what makes roulette negative expectation - it's the unfair payouts for the odds.

Results are altering, thus a flexible bet selection which can be adjusted to the ever changing roulette flows is a must.

I'm not sure what you mean by "results are altering". And your reference to "flow" I assume means past spins like 1,1,1,1,1, but they have no influence on future spins, so no influence on the odds.