MATRIX VERTICAL METHOD ONLY

[GLC]

Since we may consider a different taking method, I would like to put one option out there.

It may violate JL's 20 event theory, but maybe it will work anyway.

My idea is to wait for a quad and then bet for 3 (1-1; 3-3; 9-9) instead of 4 (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27) times.  A fail progression of 3 steps cost us 26 units instead of 80 units.

This should work because of the high hit rate in the first 3 bets.

To recover our 26 units more quickly, we could play 3-3; 9-9; 27-27 and recover 3 times faster.

If you don't like this idea and you could play at Betvoyager like Twister does and speed things up quite a bit and wait for 2 quads in a row and then bet 1-3-9 and it would be the same as betting for 5 quads except that you save the 54 units.

If you're concerned about the 54 wins you would have made by betting the 2nd quad, remember, every time you lose a 1-3-9-27 series, you lose those 54 units.

This is a train of thought that I haven't had time to follow in every direction possible.  Maybe some of you young guys with quicker thinking processes can take this in a better direction or point out the higher risks it gives.

George

[Twisteruk]

Well its been a good day

Played from around 4am this morning on and off until 10pm tonight on turbo mode on BV

Someone asked how much I was up, well Im now up enough to be able to take two total wipe out sessions in a row and still be in profit

Each session today lasted btwn 4 mins and 8 mins

Playing fast

Anyway, Im old, and tired, and my eyes hurt so Im on the Train to bed !


Night 

[Johnlegend]

Since we may consider a different taking method, I would like to put one option out there.

It may violate JL's 20 event theory, but maybe it will work anyway.

My idea is to wait for a quad and then bet for 3 (1-1; 3-3; 9-9) instead of 4 (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27) times.  A fail progression of 3 steps cost us 26 units instead of 80 units.

This should work because of the high hit rate in the first 3 bets.

To recover our 26 units more quickly, we could play 3-3; 9-9; 27-27 and recover 3 times faster.

If you don't like this idea and you could play at Betvoyager like Twister does and speed things up quite a bit and wait for 2 quads in a row and then bet 1-3-9 and it would be the same as betting for 5 quads except that you save the 54 units.

If you're concerned about the 54 wins you would have made by betting the 2nd quad, remember, every time you lose a 1-3-9-27 series, you lose those 54 units.

This is a train of thought that I haven't had time to follow in every direction possible.  Maybe some of you young guys with quicker thinking processes can take this in a better direction or point out the higher risks it gives.

George

Nice post George. Today played 14 sessions and not one went beyond 2 QUADS. Twister and me know that 5th Quad may NEVER SHOW.

that's why some think 54 is a big risk, I am stating this bluntly, but I think time will prove me right. The strike rate of MATRIX VERTICAL is likely to be 1,000/1 minumum. When you think of those odds 80Pts seems like a very modest risk. Random has no anwser to 5 QUADS George thus far, it may be so rare. We have a progression grail on our hands. I have 2,405 recorded sessions without a single. 5 QUAD. I'm stunned what have we got here people??

[GLC]

Nice post George. Today played 14 sessions and not one went beyond 2 QUADS. Twister and me know that 5th Quad may NEVER SHOW.

that's why some think 54 is a big risk, I am stating this bluntly, but I think time will prove me right. The strike rate of MATRIX VERTICAL is likely to be 1,000/1 minumum. When you think of those odds 80Pts seems like a very modest risk. Random has no anwser to 5 QUADS George thus far, it may be so rare. We have a progression grail on our hands. I have 2,405 recorded sessions without a single. 5 QUAD. I'm stunned what have we got here people??

Here's my take on what you just wrote.  If you ever have a loss on at 27-27 bet, if you don't take a shot at 51-51, then you don't believe what you just wrote.  As a matter of fact I think if I ever get to a loss on 27-27 I'm going to bet 80-80 because to lose it would be so rare that I think it's worth risking 160 units to prevent losing 80 with those odds.

Just my take on it.  You never know.  For sure 102 units is worth risking to save having to claw back 80 units if you just take the 27-27 loss.

[Johnlegend]

Here's my take on what you just wrote.  If you ever have a loss on at 27-27 bet, if you don't take a shot at 51-51, then you don't believe what you just wrote.  As a matter of fact I think if I ever get to a loss on 27-27 I'm going to bet 80-80 because to lose it would be so rare that I think it's worth risking 160 units to prevent losing 80 with those odds.

Just my take on it.  You never know.  For sure 102 units is worth risking to save having to claw back 80 units if you just take the 27-27 loss.

George I couldn't agree more. I think a 6 QUAD is simply impossible for random. We still have no number cruncher to give us the odds of a 5 QUAD forming. Id like to know. Every time I bet ive got 160 points on the line George and ive already won more than 1.5 that amount. We are asking random to land a dozen in the same place 20 times in a row, and its not interested. To our advantage..

[warrior]

George I couldn't agree more. I think a 6 QUAD is simply impossible for random. We still have no number cruncher to give us the odds of a 5 QUAD forming. Id like to know. Every time I bet I've got 160 points on the line George and I've already won more than 1.5 that amount. We are asking random to land a dozen in the same place 20 times in a row, and its not interested. To our advantage..

knowing that a 5 quad does not form that often why not start  betting on a 3quad as a trigger  ?

[GLC]

The following are some correction I made to an earlier post.  There were some incorrect numbers in it.

Here's my take on what you just wrote.  If you ever have a loss on at 27-27 bet, if you don't take a shot at 51-51, This should read 81-81) then you don't believe what you just wrote.  As a matter of fact I think if I ever get to a loss on 27-27 I'm going to bet 80-80  This should read 100-100 because to lose it would be so rare that I think it's worth risking 160 This should read 200) units to prevent losing 80 with those odds.

Just my take on it.  You never know.  For sure 102This should read 162 units is worth risking to save having to claw back 80 units if you just take the 27-27 loss.

[GLC]

knowing that a 5 quad does not form that often why not start  betting on a 3quad as a trigger  ?

I think the reason is that waiting for 3 quads in a row would take hundreds of spins but I think it's worth it if we use this reasoning.

This reasoning doesn't apply if we expect to win much more betting on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th quads than we will lose when we lose a 5th quad bet.

Let's say it's impossible for 6 quads to happen.  That means that we don't have to skip betting on the 1st triple to form a quad, all we need is a 844 unit bank (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 162-162; 243-243) so if the 1st time we start betting and lose the 1st 5 bets meaning that 5 quads formed in a row, we still have the 243-243 bet to place for the 6th triple not to form a quad.  And it won't because, remember, it's impossible.  That would mean that it's time to close down all roulette tables in the world, or change their win vs max bet limits so we can't make these bets.

Okay, so that's not reality.  But if JL is right and we can expect maybe 1000 to 1odds of 5 quads forming then we should be able to expect at least 2000 to 1 against 6 quads forming.  That means we can be willing to place 6 bets against this event happening.  If we have 2000 to 1 unit wins and an  844 unit loss we are still up by 1156 units.

Or, we could still use the 1st quad as a trigger and only risk betting 5 steps instead of 6 steps.

Just some numbers to get you to thinking of what's happening here.  Of course all this is mere hypothesis up to this point.

G

[Johnlegend]

I think the reason is that waiting for 3 quads in a row would take hundreds of spins but I think it's worth it if we use this reasoning.

This reasoning doesn't apply if we expect to win much more betting on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th quads than we will lose when we lose a 5th quad bet.

Let's say it's impossible for 6 quads to happen.  That means that we don't have to skip betting on the 1st triple to form a quad, all we need is a 844 unit bank (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 162-162; 243-243) so if the 1st time we start betting and lose the 1st 5 bets meaning that 5 quads formed in a row, we still have the 243-243 bet to place for the 6th triple not to form a quad.  And it won't because, remember, it's impossible.  That would mean that it's time to close down all roulette tables in the world, or change their win vs max bet limits so we can't make these bets.

Okay, so that's not reality.  But if JL is right and we can expect maybe 1000 to 1odds of 5 quads forming then we should be able to expect at least 2000 to 1 against 6 quads forming.  That means we can be willing to place 6 bets against this event happening.  If we have 2000 to 1 unit wins and an  844 unit loss we are still up by 1156 units.

Or, we could still use the 1st quad as a trigger and only risk betting 5 steps instead of 6 steps.

Just some numbers to get you to thinking of what's happening here.  Of course all this is mere hypothesis up to this point.

G

I love your wry humor George, you come from land of the tornado, George. I think its around march to may they really hit. What would be the odds of 6 tornados touching down in the same part of town?

My theory on the Matrix George is the number 20 is randoms levy inside the matrix. I have two separate versions of the Matrix to draw this conclusion from. I've never seen a losing streak of 20 Or more between two matching dozens (yet I have thousands between 9---19)

And we can't find a single 5 QUAD. (5X4=20).This is fascinating to me. Already played 2 sessions over breakfast. Am now 107/0=252 points profit. My goal today is to complete 2 betting banks in profit, 2x160=320 POINTS.

[6th-sense]

triple to form a quad, all we need is a 844 unit bank (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 162-162; 243-243) so if the 1st time we start betting and lose the 1st 5 bets meaning that 5 quads formed in a row, we still have the 243-243 bet to place for the 6th triple not to form a quad.  And it won't because, remember, it's impossible.  That would mean that it's time to close down all roulette tables in the world, or change their win vs max bet limits so we can't make these bets.

i think the progression is wrong here its a lot more than that  162 and 243 win wouldn,t recover the losses??

[Johnlegend]

knowing that a 5 quad does not form that often why not start  betting on a 3quad as a trigger  ?

Hi Warrior, doing this would require the patience of a saint. I had to wait 124 spins yesterday to even get 1 QUAD for one of my  triggers.

Then 4 triggers came closer together, this is the nature of random. But I played 14 sessions yesterday. 9 of them were ONE STEP WINS, and 5 were TWO STEP WINS. There were no TREBLE QUADS Warrior.

The trick is making something very safe while still getting enough action to make it worthwhile. I think we have it nailed with the ONE QUAD TRIGGER...

[Johnlegend]

Triple to form a quad, all we need is a 844 unit bank (1-1; 3-3; 9-9; 27-27; 81-81; 162-162; 243-243) so if the 1st time we start betting and lose the 1st 5 bets meaning that 5 quads formed in a row, we still have the 243-243 bet to place for the 6th triple not to form a quad.  And it won't because, remember, it's impossible.  That would mean that it's time to close down all roulette tables in the world, or change their win vs max bet limits so we can't make these bets.

i think the progression is wrong here its a lot more than that  162 and 243 win wouldn,t recover the losses??

This is the progression George had in mind I think. ONE QUAD TRIGGER then,1,3,9,27,81,243x2=727 points risk that a. 7 QUAD won't form. Now 727 seems like a huge risk. And to a Newbie it is and isn't advised. But lets say 2 years down the road from now. We have some idea about a 5 QUADS STRIKERATE. But we still haven't seen a 6 QUAD. Have made 10,000 plus points profit. That risk against a 7 QUAD no longer seems that bad. Everything is relative...

[Twisteruk]

Everything is relative...

So true  !

[Johnlegend]

So true  !

Hey Twister BV had me dizzy yesterday WOW...

[Twisteruk]

Hey Twister BV had me dizzy yesterday WOW...

Its the only way I play now 

Can you imagine playin this on a Live Wheel ?

Urgghhhhhhh !

Do you like BV ?