Winning Structurally

[Blueprint]

My reply to you is still correct and you confirmed it..... 3 cherries would imply its all the same partition(elements in a set)

I guess that depends on the view.  3 cherries are 3 cherries.  You can create it however you want.  I'm not saying 3 Highs or 3 Lows or even 3 Lines.  Elements of a set are elements of a set, no matter where they come from.

[MoneyT101]

I guess that depends on the view.  3 cherries are 3 cherries.  You can create it however you want.  I'm not saying 3 Highs or 3 Lows or even 3 Lines.  Elements of a set are elements of a set, no matter where they come from.

i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing 

so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?

[Blueprint]

i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing 

so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?

To the dumpster 

[MoneyT101]

 

[TRD]

i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing 

so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?

Ain't clear to me .. another metaphor perhaps .. or just simply talk the concept straight, & walk it with an example.

[MoneyT101]

Ain't clear to me .. another metaphor perhaps .. or just simply talk the concept straight, & walk it with an example.

Low has double street 1 2 3
High has double street 4 5 6

So my reply was that 3 Cherry would mean the numbers are part of the same group.  Lets say low=Cherry

222....thats 3 Cherry
123....thats 3 cherry
112... thats 3 cherry

But in this case he was referring to creating your own numbers in a group

He calls it elements in a set and i called it same partition so i explained to him we agree.

[TRD]

Yeah, that's all cool & well, but the results don't conform to any cherry.
I know that, & you know that.

So, whatever the set created (preset), even if dynamically updated (set anew on each cycle, or some other interval) -- the sets won't hermetically match the outcomes coming out.

Not at all time, thereof slight progression might do for most of the rest.
But what when there's a prolonged variance type tendency on preset,
or prolonged evading on dynamically changed (similar to chop).
What then, how is this any different in long run than anything else,
any other type of classical approach?


Bottom line, bs ain't the thing to rely on to win consistently.
Its just another, more sophisticated assembling of a pattern.


& no offense, you wrote with much confidence, as you had the hg, on a few threads in the past .. & I spent quite some time working on these principles, just to come to the above conclusion,
further confirmed by your own recent admission.

Now you are writing the context in the high spirit.

& fun; well even RRBB has been using this term & liked using it,
but making profit in roulette shouldn't be 'fun',
but its definitely fulfilling & satisfying once making it consistently.

& the latter word is the only one that should be the key, &or the assemblage point.

Nothing else.


Again, don't take this as an attack on you, as it ain't.
Just an objective view on the matter.

[MoneyT101]

Yeah, that's all cool & well, but the results don't conform to any cherry.
I know that, & you know that.

So, whatever the set created (preset), even if dynamically updated (set anew on each cycle, or some other interval) -- the sets won't hermetically match the outcomes coming out.

Not at all time, thereof slight progression might do for most of the rest.
But what when there's a prolonged variance type tendency on preset,
or prolonged evading on dynamically changed (similar to chop).
What then, how is this any different in long run than anything else,
any other type of classical approach?


Bottom line, bs ain't the thing to rely on to win consistently.
Its just another, more sophisticated assembling of a pattern.


& no offense, you wrote with much confidence, as you had the hg, on a few threads in the past .. & I spent quite some time working on these principles, just to come to the above conclusion,
further confirmed by your own recent admission.

Now you are writing the context in the high spirit.

& fun; well even RRBB has been using this term & liked using it,
but making profit in roulette shouldn't be 'fun',
but its definitely fulfilling & satisfying once making it consistently.

& the latter word is the only one that should be the key, &or the assemblage point.

Nothing else.


Again, don't take this as an attack on you, as it ain't.
Just an objective view on the matter.

On the topic of cherry i was just clarifying what was said. In no way shape or form did i agree that using your own groups would change anything.

But you did mention that the sets wont match, maybe not all the time but im pretty sure they do

When I think of an HG and how it should look and behave... a method that wins every spin! Or has atleast more wins then losses flatbet------Yes youre right and i admit, i do not have this

[TRD]

Great, now we are getting somewhere, on true fundametals.

Well, more wins than losses, in units yes, but not necessarily in spins.
Ofc, the latter is contingent also on the type of coverage (the system uses);
that can also be dynamic - spaning from high, to wide, to focused.

On the point of progression, I disagree though, as a very very slight progression works wonders;
ofc as well, a vertical progression on focused can be seen as flat .. when dropping the number of positions that are compacted onto one focused-coverage position.
But still, a very very slight progression, in my experience is a must, if/when you wanna
keep the games the games to + acceptably short (enough) --
you can see it as compacted time.

[TRD]

Nonetheless, a lot of what you posted is still very valuable.
Eg. 4 system-making points, etc.

[Blueprint]

A progression only comes into play AFTER you have an advantage.  If you cannot win flat, you cannot win with a progression.

[Blueprint]

Great, now we are getting somewhere, on true fundametals.

Well, more wins than losses, in units yes, but not necessarily in spins.
Ofc, the latter is contingent also on the type of coverage (the system uses);
that can also be dynamic - spaning from high, to wide, to focused.

On the point of progression, I disagree though, as a very very slight progression works wonders;
ofc as well, a vertical progression on focused can be seen as flat .. when dropping the number of positions that are compacted onto one focused-coverage position.
But still, a very very slight progression, in my experience is a must, if/when you wanna
keep the games the games to + acceptably short (enough) --
you can see it as compacted time.

Be careful, you're falling into Notto and Falkor territory where no one has any idea what you're going on about.  Nor do they care.

[TRD]

Question your above progression statement ..

I would gladly answer .. but if you don't care.

Since when, & are you speaking for all?

[Blueprint]

Question your above progression statement ..

I would gladly answer .. but if you don't care.

Since when, & are you speaking for all?

I speak for myself.  It wasn’t a question so no need to answer.

[TRD]

OK, Blueprint, you are not interested or don't care;
however, you've expressed a legitimate concern of my content being border-line ambiguous,
border-line of being allocated in the nutter category, that is if comprehended your msg properly.

I know that minds are different, & different things click in various minds for the same thing, plus I am aware that my mind is inherently bit incompatible with the mainstream line of thought, as such also the representation of concept .. which, btw, make complete sense to me.

Thereof, for the sake of being comprehended, by you Blueprint & others, I will present my way in a more digestible manner, with intent to familiarize better with my language, in past & future material .. thus create some common ground, in ease of intepretation & communication.