@ turbo

[denzie]

And what was your results then? I guess not good since you're complaining.... you said it yourself, afew sessions won't show a real reslut, usually 10-20 sessions CAN tell something, (that's why i usually do 20 sessions BECAUSE a failing system won't make it through 20 sessions, That i know...)

The vb way can't lose on the long run!  Unless it's done wrong. It is what it is!

And maaaaaaany losing systems can pass 20 sessions. Fact !

[ignatus]

Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers

Yes, it may be so? But then why i had success with ((3 numbers)) ? Because flatbetting a static bet of 3 numbers usually give a short term positive result.

It all depends on ((how many numbers you bet)), Mr.J was right about that 2-4 numbers usually give a positive result, short term,

About hotnumbers having a higher hitrate than cold numbers? idk, atleast i imagine it is so, or i want to believe in it? It's all about the fun-factor also? Roulette is supposed to be a fun game, and it is! That's why i never get bored with it,..

[ignatus]

And maaaaaaany losing systems can pass 20 sessions. Fact !

No, a losing system *WON'T* pass 20 sessions, that i know from experience, and i've tested 100eds of systems that way...

[boyd30]

You answered your own question 

Ok, think I got it...more testing needed

[boyd30]

Boyd
Look here link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19225.0
Page 17 reply sep02 11:48  just away

Sorry, Notto...your pictures difficult to understand...l'll have to take a closer look...

[denzie]

No, a losing system *WON'T* pass 20 sessions, that i know from experience, and i've tested 100eds of systems that way...

Well. ...Don't know what to say.....If you think so I'll leave you to it. I tried.   

[MoneyT101]

Its one of the oldest fallacies. Hot numbers spin equally as much next as cold numbers, unless there's bias. There's no doubt. It has been tested countless times. Why is anyone still wasting time on it?

Touch bet terminals usually tell you the hot numbers because it's useless information that keeps players losing.

There's a difference between hot numbers in general and hot numbers in a cycle

The way that Denzie plays, it's considered short term not long term hot numbers that become cold.

He plays what's hot in that particular cycle of spins.

[denzie]

There's a difference between hot numbers in general and hot numbers in a cycle

The way that Denzie plays, it's considered short term not long term hot numbers that become cold.

He plays what's hot in that particular cycle of spins.

Thank you!   

[Steve]

Define "hot numbers in a cycle".

Hot numbers in any form, besides bias, is nonsense. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Again it has been tested exhaustively. No sequence of numbers is any more likely than another without the variables making it so. Players who track hot numbers tend to not track variables at all, or track the wrong thing. So they have no idea of the cause and effect, and if hot numbers are just normal expectation.  Its playing blind.

If anyone wants to argue this, don't just grumble. Show me data.

[cht]

I actually have something else important to do but I did say I would explain it again so here we are.

I'll use another example but you'll have to use your imagination for some parts, don't worry - it will make sense when you're done reading.

We walk up after someone plays a session of 38 spins (0/00 wheel)
Lucky for us we can see every spin that happened in that session.
(I'll just run these off RNG just for the sake of explanation)
13 numbers never appeared
17 numbers showed up once
5 numbers showed up twice
1 number showed up three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

I can simplify this if it helps :
13 numbers never appeared.
25 numbers showed up at least once

8 of those numbers showed up at least twice
3 of those numbers showed up at least three times
2 numbers showed up four times.

But anyway - either way it's the same.
So I look at you and say "If you could go back in time and play these same spins, what would you do ?" and here I have a time machine (how convenient - I told you there's some imagination here)
Now you're going to give me some obvious answers I hope ?
You wouldn't bet a single thing on the 13 numbers that never appeared (why on earth would you ?)
You "could" bet on the numbers that showed up only once - but you would lose on those numbers
exactly at the house edge - so a bit silly of an idea. But that's up to you.
You Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up twice - those 5 numbers would be a nice profit maker.
You Most Certainly would bet on the numbers that showed up three times ! - very nice profit from those.
And you would be a fool not to bet on the numbers that showed up four times !

So what kind of money would you put on them ?
Well, common sense would tell you that they all make profit regardless - but my time machine isn't going to be around in the future so you're going to have to make some choices.
You'll bet a minimal amount on the numbers that had 1 show
You'd bet more on the 2 show numbers
You'd bet even more on the 3 show numbers and
You'd bet a LOT on the 4 show numbers... This is a aggressive progression
and you're not worried because with the time machine you can't lose.

So all of this makes sense - and the naysayers can say "well we don't have a time machine".
And guess what - you don't need one.
I made this clear in other posts - those numbers that appeared 4 times were numbers that had appeared 3 times.
Those numbers that appeared 3 times were only numbers that appeared 2 times
and the numbers that appeared 2 times were only numbers that appeared once.
All of the numbers that never appeared ? They never appeared.......
Use the same logic on the next 38 spins that you don't know.... correct ? It's not rocket science.
You can say "There's no way of knowing the next spin..." and that is correct.
You can say "There's no way of knowing that a number with 1 show is going to be a number that has 2 or more shows" - and that is correct. BUT - the only numbers that will have 2 shows are numbers that appeared once. See ?
Steve rightly said that systems are useless.. "If accuracy of bet selection doesn't increase, no progression can consistently win."
Now your accuracy just increased (and greatly).
As a matter of fact - by NOT betting on numbers that never show you are no longer playing/winning/losing at the house edge.
You can test this - it's not hard to do. I did it at the other forum as an example.
Play every number on the table for 38 spins - you'll end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only once it shows - you won't end at the house edge.
Play every number on the table but only after it shows twice - again - you won't win/lose at the house edge.
You can continue this on for quite a while.
The "house edge" on a 38 pocket wheel is 2 numbers.
If you play every number on the table for 38 spins, you will be down 2 units - this is the house edge.
However - if you play every number Except for the last 2 numbers that end up appearing (this could be 150 spins or more ? it varies) You never play at the house edge at all.
For those who want to test things - there's where to begin.
The aggressive progression not only covers the numbers that appear "at average" if you choose to play them - it boosts your profits beyond flat betting and does not involve chasing a loss or digging out of a hole - it's not a negative progression, it's a positive one based on wins.

Thanks for reading, I can only hope this sinks in - and if not then you're on your own.

Has anyone properly tested this ?

[Steve]

Yes and it doesn't work. Its Just a typical losing approach repackaged.

[cht]

Yes and it doesn't work. Its Just a typical losing approach repackaged.

Despite TG's claim I don't see how it can work. Test proves it doesn't work. If anyone claims otherwise, show us the proof.

"Hot" and "cold" numbers that casinos help punters track this "streak" is a bait for noobs to lose.

Wake up people!

[cht]

Despite TG's claim I don't see how it can work. Test proves it doesn't work. If anyone claims otherwise, show us the proof.

"Hot" and "cold" numbers that casinos help punters track this "streak" is a bait for noobs to lose.

Wake up people!

Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.
Fool me thrice you're a jerk and
I'm a dickhead fool !

[nottophammer]

Boyd


some say start to bet staraight away, you make this decision.
Bet spin 1,#18 at spin 8 win the 7#'s will have cost at1 units 28, so +8, if like shanks you now walk,reset or what ever your game play is.
If it was to carry on you'd bet #18 at 5 units like TG, me steady old 2 units. So you'd bet the hot #18 and the hot #31and win hot#18.

There you go old fucking useless  steve airball game as well so is it rigged?

I'll post your reply Steve, Notto you're a dickhead, typical reply from useless blatant liar, bet thats got your feathers rattled, jizz or finger coming, oh am i baiting, get Turner on the case LOL

[boyd30]

Boyd


some say start to bet staraight away, you make this decision.
Bet spin 1,#18 at spin 8 win the 7#'s will have cost at1 units 28, so +8, if like shanks you now walk,reset or what ever your game play is.
If it was to carry on you'd bet #18 at 5 units like TG, me steady old 2 units. So you'd bet the hot #18 and the hot #31and win hot#18.

There you go old f****** useless  steve airball game as well so is it rigged?

I'll post your reply Steve, Notto you're a dickhead, typical reply from useless blatant liar, bet thats got your feathers rattled, jizz or finger coming, oh am i baiting, get Turner on the case LOL

Thank you Notto! Got it little better now after been studying it. I will test it.