MATRIX VERTICAL METHOD ONLY

[Twisteruk]

Hi Twister

Did test late last night and did it a bit wrong.  I have done another test with same numbers here.  I think waiting for vertual loss as a trigger for each bet looks best.  Have to wait and see what Joahn and Atlantis think final version should be.  This was betting without trigger, against trebles (Vertical) and Quads (Horizontal)

                            Tested WITHOUT waiting for a vertual loss

1311231
3222221 Loss (Horizontal) -2
3313333 Win (Vertical) -1 Loss (1Doz) H+V -2
2233122 Win (V) -1
2233222 Loss (V) -3 ------Here I bet on line 6 that the 222 would not form a quad
1123132 W (H) - 2 W (V) -1 W (V) -0 L (V) -2  W (V) -1 L (V) -3
1021223 W (V) -2 W(V) -1
2313332 W (V) - 0 W (V) + 1
1323212
3332331 W (V) +2 W (H) 1 Doz bet +4
3132232 W (V) + 5
3332331 W (V) +6 L (V) +4  W (V) + 5 W (V) + 6 W (V) + 7
1221111 W (V) + 8 (H) + 6
1221202  L (V) + 4 W (V) + 5 W (V) +6
           
                                 End + 6

Sorry miss calculated was + 6 at the end was late night test and had a few beers  

Ah thanx for showing us mate 

[Johnlegend]

Do we even need 7 misses playing this way ? As we need the doubles to form to make the trips etc etc

, wait for a vertical Treble and bet against the Quad. If you get hit then bet againt the 5 timer. I would even go so far to say that if you get hit by a 5 timer bet against the 6 timer.

that's only a 3 step, we could make it a 4 step !?!?


We are keeping it just vertical right ?

Yes there's no one who posts quite like me is there? Lol! Can't remember the email for the old fender1000 Twister that why im johnlegend now. Anyway back on track I think vertical is the way to keep this matrix and absolutely master its behaviour I haven't seen more than a 7 in 2,112 sessions Twister. So your thinking on outliving that streak has to be taken seriously. It a lot safer than betting there won't. Be 8 straight dozens in a row.

[Post]

What would be the progression for betting against a triple to became a quad ?

[Twisteruk]

What would be the progression for betting against a triple to became a quad ?

Well it would be on the two other dozens


So it would be something like 1-3-9-27


that's the usual betting for 2 dozens


So we would be betting for the Triple not to become a Quad 1 chip on each dozen

If Lose

Quad not to become a 5 timer 3 chips on each

If Lose

5 timer not to become a 6 timer 9 chips on each

If lose

6 timer not to become a 7 timer 27 chips on each


If you hit a 7 timer then you lose*

* to be decided


Obviously not forgetting any other trips that come along during play

[Twisteruk]

Yes there's no one who posts quite like me is there? LoL! Can't remember the email for the old fender1000 Twister that why I'm johnlegend now.

I can PM it to you if you want it ?

[buffalowizard]

Or you could play the progression 1,3,9,27 on 4 triples not becoming 4 quads in a row instead. The odds are probably the same for hitting a 7 timer. Its all good

[Twisteruk]

Or you could play the progression 1,3,9,27 on 4 triples not becoming 4 quads in a row instead. The odds are probably the same for hitting a 7 timer. Its all good

Yes most likely

I think I might prefer 4 Trips not to become a Quad


I have seen a 7 Timer, but not 4 Quads in a row. Infact ive not seen more than 2 Quads in a 5x10 or a 7x7



Opinions !?!?

[Johnlegend]

I can PM it to you if you want it ?

Okay thanks TwisterUK

[Twisteruk]

Yes most likely

I think I might prefer 4 Trips not to become a Quad


I have seen a 7 Timer, but not 4 Quads in a row. Infact I've not seen more than 2 Quads in a 5x10 or a 7x7



Opinions !?!?

Whats ure opinion John ?

[GLC]

What would be the progression for betting against a triple to became a quad ?

Hey guys, I have been reading your posts and I guess I'm starting to get shell shocked from all the systems we work on and try to iron out the kinks and finally bring them down to what we think is the most effective way to play and we never quite get a fail-safe method down.

Also, some of the books I have been reading by men who have played roulette for a life-time and emphatically state that they could never find a system such as this one that would hold up over the long haul has me a little worried.

As I look at the morphing of this system, I have to ask myself,  "Why does noting dozens in a 7X7 matrix aid us in picking winners?"  "How does it effect our ability to determine the next dozen to spin?"  The wheel doesn't know that we have created this matrix.  Our matrix doesn't control the wheel.  If we shift our lines 1 spin everything changes, so how does that really make any difference?

The way I see it, I don't think this is much different than waiting for a dozen to hit 3 times in a row and then betting that it won't become 4 in a row.  It won't become 4 in a row 2/3 of the time and it will become 4 in a row 1/3 of the time (not taking zero into account).

I'm not trying to be a nay say-er, I'm just wanting us to consider this perspective.  It seems to me that what we're really trying to do is find a way to bet the above case so that we come out ahead more than we lose.  Is it because somehow  we have found a trend to follow?  I just don't see that here.  

Our problem is that we see a phenomenon such as a dozen hitting 3 times but not hitting a 4th time as often as it should and we think that we have stumbled onto a fold in reality, but it's really just a temporary occurrence that will correct itself soon enough and leave us frustrated because we built this whole method on an anomaly.

I know that you all understand what I'm saying.  We've been doing this long enough to be on the same page.  It's like the feeling I had as a kid when I was fearful that some kind of monster was under the bed, but I didn't want to look because there was a sense of excitement in thinking it was there, yet knowing it wasn't.

I hope I'm wrong this time, but I have that feeling....

Your Comrade,

George

[Johnlegend]

 

Yes most likely

I think I might prefer 4 Trips not to become a Quad


I have seen a 7 Timer, but not 4 Quads in a row. Infact I've not seen more than 2 Quads in a 5x10 or a 7x7



Opinions !?!?

I second that TWISTERUK its rarer than 5 losing streaks of 9 or more forming in my old Zone method. The difference and beauty is their crystal clear in front of you in the format of the MATRIX The progression is straight forward too.

[superman]

I'm not trying to be a nay say-er, I'm just wanting us to consider this perspective.  It seems to me that what we're really trying to do is find a way to bet the above case so that we come out ahead more and we lose.  Is it because somehow  we have found a trend to follow?  It just don't see that here

Sorry to say but I too don't see a point in following any sort of trend long term, the percentages will catch up, you can take that to the bank.

[Twisteruk]

I second that TWISTERUK its rarer than 5 losing streaks of 9 or more forming in my old Zone method. The difference and beauty is their crystal clear in front of you in the format of the MATRIX The progression is straight forward too.

Yep ok mate


I will Test/Play on Trips not becoming Quads

If it becomes a Quad then leave that column alone until it becomes a new Trip

[Johnlegend]

Glc there is a world of difference. Einstein said nobody could beat the layout in Roulette. And he remains right to this day. What hold einy didn't think about is what would happen if you took it away from its natural playground, and threw it into the playground of the law of averages/percentages. ENTER THE MATRIX. Now heres an example of how you see things differently when you do this.

How would the average roulette player know that for every 49 spins thus far in 58 sessions I've played there has never been LESS THAN 13 MATCHES? He wouldn't. What we are doing with the matrixes is saying RANDOM do your thing in our frame. You now have a senior keeping an eye on you. Its called the LAW OF AVERAGES. And the matrix has become (at least my playground of winning discovery) And I have a feeling its just the start.

Every strategy/method I ever saw even my Zone had one fatal flaw. THEY TRIED TO TACKLE THE LAYOUT OF ROULETTE HEAD ON.

Not so with the Matrixes they are playing random against itself. And I for one have always known theres limits to what random can do like hitting all 37 numbers on the wheel in 37 spins. Simply will never happen. Even matching a perfect line of 7 dozens. Its been 2,200+ lines since I even saw a 5 match. Random has borders it seldom crosses. Find them formulate a functional method to exploit them and the games beaten hands down.

The MATRIX VERTICAL is such a method. I Have 2,100 plus sessions that have never produced 4 vertical QUADS IN A ROW. That's a potential 2,000 points profit to every 80 point bank lost even if it were 200. I'm taking it and I think TWISTERUK wants his share too.

[ZigZag]

I have seen a 7 Timer, but not 4 Quads in a row.  Infact I've not seen more than 2 Quads in a 5x10 or a 7x7



Opinions !?!?


[/quote]

When you say you have seen a 7 timer.  Do you mean you seen 7 seperate triples in a row verticaly?