Simple System, Low bankroll, One bet selection.

[Nimo]

Here is a simple system that I use based on knowing that I will double my bankroll roughly every 1000 spins.  I play it RNG only.  200 Unit bankroll will double in approximately 1000 spins.  May not seem like a lot per spin, however a large enough unit makes this very worthwhile.

Here are the charts, one in Roulette Simulator, on on RX real money spins.  The charts have similar but different upward and downwards trends, with an overall upward trend, the very interesting thing is the dollar amounts are similar within the spin range.  For example the RX and the  RS around the 150 spin mark both show around +40 units, with multiple similarities throughout.  Largest amount bet is 18 units on RS and 8 units on RX real money spins.  RX shows a just over 8% win rate, higher than house edge and over 1000 spins. 






Here is the system:

Bet 1 unit on any dozen or column. I usually just play the middle dozen continuously   If you lose four times in a row, increase the bet by 1 unit.  Stay at that unit level until at new high or four losses.  If four losses add one unti, stay at that level until new high or four losses.... and goes on and on .  RS was up to 18 units, and the RS real money went to 8 units.  If you don't get four losses in a row, do not increase the unit bet, You may get a win on the fourth bet but not be at a new high, you would stay on that unit bet and only increase it once you had four losses in a row.

[ignatus]

Nice! My like button is not working, but seems good! 

[jono1167]

Look forward to having a go of this.

It looks like a nice simple system. I’ll let you know how it goes. Thanks for sharing Mako

[thelaw]

Looks like it almost past -200 units on the first chart, so that looks like a bad sign.

What am I missing here?

[The General]

Looks like it almost past -200 units on the first chart, so that looks like a bad sign.

What am I missing here?

1. A 200 unit draw down is nothing.  It's insignificant. if a system truly has an edge, then you can expect much larger draw downs than just that.  And furthermore, you can't avoid them.
2. The system above is going to tank down far more than just 200 units.  It will eventually wipe out your entire bankroll.

[The General]

Also, just because a session ends it doesn't mean that your draw down does.  Losses carry forward, regardless of the session length.

[luckyfella]

This is what I have been saying on this forum the way to win this roulette game - check my last few post of the 2 links I posted. People don't understand the math at all behind such systems play, yet they make useless comment as if they understand the math when clearly they don't.

For those interested and those who ask for guidance on pm, if you learn the real math behind the 2 links and properly understands both of them what they truly mean, then you can begin to design systems just like this one that works based on empirical evidence.

I do not know if Nimo's method gives a net positive edge.

What I do know is his method has the similar basis as what I posted.
And his method can be robustly tested to confirm if it's a winner or not.

Nimo has posted one of his methods.
Use this example to properly understand the math that my 2 link mean. Then with this new knowledge about math, go find the systems play that work. Instead of the thousands of systems that don't work because there is no basis for the design.

The so-called self proclaimed roulette experts(I won't name them) are clearly no expert at all. Their math knowledge is shallow, OPINION formed based on the posts the make. Don't be foolish to be misguided by their false expertise.

[luckyfella]

It does not matter what the self proclaimed roulette experts say.

Systems players should NEVER ignore the math of roulette - 37pockets with unfair payout of 35 for European wheel.

The ONLY way for systems play to get around this unfair payout is this statement below.

Turbo made this claim -
RANDOM HAS LIMITS.

Proof it with empirical evidence.
Is this claim true ?

That is your ONLY aim.
If you can get hold of this empirical proof you have found the way to win this roulette game.

If you have not found the empirical proof it does not mean TG's claim is not true.
It merely means the proof you seek is beyond you.

If you found this empirical proof and still don't know how to win, it clearly means you don't understand the math behind the 2links I posted.

The best and clear help I have given on forums.

[Madi]

Lucky
In one link i got a screenshot. What it indicates?

Second one is for a formula to calculate max losing or winning streak. Problem is formula deliver a “most likely” thing. This most likely and actual streak has big difference and enough to make u lose. Personally i dont accept any math formula which gives a result (likely). Real math is exactly not likely.

I like target betting. Its just another way.

[luckyfella]

This post is the real math.

2 words - skew and kurtosis

Watch this video to learn the math.

@Madi, I won't explain further than what I have written. Properly understand it what the math says. Most people have ingrained bias OPINION that has nothing to do with the math - that's what blocks them from what the MATH says.

[The General]

The picture shows a graph of 25000units profit played over 272spins on RS at 5units betsize (steve has to approve the pic for you to see it)

The MATH involves your understanding of the word LIMIT

Most people understand LIMIT as the common basic -
20reds in a row
Or #20 sleeps for 400+ spins
Or 12repeaters in 37spins

If you understand it this way, your understanding is limited
Ofc it shows variance is a huge monster that kills your br

Reconfigure your understanding of LIMIT

Example
If you are betting opposite red=black, don't think of how many total consecutive reds
Instead think of how many consecutive blacks
(minimum gap is one example, google to read up on TGs work)

Plot the frequency distribution to reveal the details for target betting

Read my post on how to properly use positive and negative progression

The ONLY way to win is to mathematically reconfigure RANDOM to reveal the LIMIT

The best help I have given on any forum

I'm guessing this is the link that Luckyfella is referring to. 

"Skewness is a measure of symmetry, or more precisely, the lack of symmetry. A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it looks the same to the left and right of the center point. Kurtosis is a measure of whether the data are heavy-tailed or light-tailed relative to a normal distribution."
Again, that is implying that the past spins will point to some kind of trend that can be exploited, which just isn't true.

1. My first question for Lucky is, how is this not gambler's fallacy stuff?

2. What is it that the experts are saying that you feel is wrong?

3. Are you sure that you're not the former poster Alabalaha?

[luckyfella]

I'm guessing this is the link that Luckyfella is referring to. 
1. My first question for Lucky is, how is this not gambler's fallacy stuff?

2. What is it that the experts are saying that you feel is wrong?

3. Are you sure that you're not the former poster Alabalaha?

Caleb and Steve, for the last time, if you post relevant math I will respond.

If you post the usual shit, I won't respond.

Enjoy your "trolling activity".

[The General]

Caleb and Steve, for the last time, if you post relevant math I will respond.

If you post the usual shit, I won't respond.

Enjoy your "trolling activity".

Luckyfella,

I'm not trolling.  I'm just asking some questions. Why do you feel that all of the experts are wrong?

Ofc it shows variance is a huge monster that kills your br

This one comment above, and your temper really reminds me of Albalaha. 

[luckyfella]

For those interested, ignore the 'trolling activity' that must come whose sole purpose is to divert your attention from the relevant math that I posted.

Learn and properly understand the math from the video I posted.
It is the most basic math without which your systems play will have no chance to win in this unfair payout roulette game.

Have a good day everyone.

[Steve]

Its easier to call it trolling instead of answering simple questions that lead to revealing blatant mistakes and misunderstandingd