• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Almost every system has been tested many times before. Start by learning what we already know doesn't work, and why.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

EC

Started by ego, May 23, 04:40 AM 2012

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 6
User actions

justanothergambler

#15
May 24, 05:42 AM 2012
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later

ego

#16
May 24, 05:53 AM 2012
Quote from: justanothergambler on May 24, 05:42 AM 2012
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later

You did not find a method less risky as they all are the same thing and you did not find a method witch produce higher hit ratio.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#17
May 24, 06:22 AM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 24, 05:53 AM 2012
You did not find a method less risky as they all are the same thing and you did not find a method witch produce higher hit ratio.

The only method i find that is better then others is Marigny - but it should not be that - as all selections has the same probability.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

Bayes

#18
May 24, 04:58 PM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 23, 04:40 AM 2012
As you can see we get this patterns and everyone begins with a red outcome and the two that follows.

You could do the same for patterns which begin with black, then play both using a progression betting differentially.

I know you've posted this idea in the past, but this is the first time I've really got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation.  :)

QuoteIts all the same S H I T so you can play random against random and it is the same as CODE 4 or any other popular bet seletciont with same strike ratio.
THE LOTTERY GAME

Agreed!  :thumbsup:
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

warrior

#19
May 24, 07:15 PM 2012
Quote from: justanothergambler on May 24, 05:42 AM 2012
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later
whats the more powerful way?

ego

#20
May 25, 06:36 AM 2012
Quote from: Bayes on May 24, 04:58 PM 2012
You could do the same for patterns which begin with black, then play both using a progression betting differentially.

I know you've posted this idea in the past, but this is the first time I've really got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation.  :)

Agreed!  :thumbsup:

It is simple but complex by it self.
One static rule and the rest random against random.

You see three series of three that begins with red you have your bet selection or one can use 4 5 6 indications of red or series of three that begins with the same outcome/colour.
Equilibrium is powerfull when you play against 20 25 30 trails witch has the same probability as 20 25 30 blacks or reds in a row.

One other explanation is that if you have three series of three witch all begin with red.
Then you have to get a pattern of 9 to repeat 3 times in a row - witch has the same probability to get 3 x 9 reds or blacks in a row.
The crucial aspect is the staking plan - all in or play in different stages with recovery plan.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#21
May 25, 06:42 AM 2012
Quote from: warrior on May 24, 07:15 PM 2012
what's the more powerful way?

Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - thats all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

albertojonas

#22
May 25, 07:03 AM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:42 AM 2012
Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - that's all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.
i believe warrior's question was directed to justanothergambler... =)


i like to mess around with this as you know, and i like the idea that you can had extra factor to it.


gathering the permanence the same way, with the static rulle. i wait to observe 3 different formations in a row and then bet against the missing one to appear right after.
xxx
xxo
xox
x---here i bet against xoo


or any other combination...


this one does not substitute the previous but it hads an extra bet type.


cheers

Robeenhuut

#23
May 25, 07:12 AM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:42 AM 2012
Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - that's all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.

In order to capitalize on a pattern you have to bet against whole pattern. And any progression would be very costly. You generally would need at least 2 wins especially  if you go deeper and  if you don't go for just one win. And playing for one win on ECs means martingale.
In one of your posts you posted an example where you got hit on 11th step out of 12 possible.
And if you go flat or very mild progression its like hit and miss approach to me. ;D
Matt

Robeenhuut

#24
May 25, 07:36 AM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:36 AM 2012
It is simple but complex by it self.
One static rule and the rest random against random.

You see three series of three that begins with red you have your bet selection or one can use 4 5 6 indications of red or series of three that begins with the same outcome/colour.
Equilibrium is powerfull when you play against 20 25 30 trails witch has the same probability as 20 25 30 blacks or reds in a row.

One other explanation is that if you have three series of three witch all begin with red.
Then you have to get a pattern of 9 to repeat 3 times in a row - witch has the same probability to get 3 x 9 reds or blacks in a row.
The crucial aspect is the staking plan - all in or play in different stages with recovery plan.

And you are wrong here about probability.  Betting against formation of any Rxx pattern for 9 times in a row still its like betting 12 times against any EC. Why? The whole pattern consists of 27 different outcomes but you bet 6x2=12 times against it. Other outcomes are predetermined already and you probably know how easy is to lose for example 7 times in a row any bet on EC.
Matt

Bayes

#25
May 25, 07:43 AM 2012
Unfortunately Robeenhuut is correct.  :-X

Any bet selection is going to be hit & miss, so it's as good as anything else (and also as bad).
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

marivo

#26
May 25, 08:15 AM 2012
Quote from: ego on May 23, 04:40 AM 2012


The second rule now is that every time we have a red we will play only for two decisions like this.

RBB then we play RR
RBR then we play RB
RRR then we play BB
RRB then we play BR



I just don't understand this!

Robeenhuut

#27
May 25, 08:42 AM 2012
Quote from: marivo on May 25, 08:15 AM 2012
I just don't understand this!

You just bet opposite of 2 outcomes in Rxx sequence after R hits  >:(
RBB you bet opposite of BB after R hits - RR
Matt

marivo

#28
May 25, 08:56 AM 2012
Thanks, its clearer now....

ego

#29
May 25, 10:40 AM 2012

-

@ All i agree to what has been saying and again state that this is as good it gets and no other selection is better - but i don't agree that you have to use Marty to win as Fibo does very good ...
Periodic betting or all in.

@ albertononas you understand it wrong ...

Here you can see why Marty is one big illusion and why you don't need it to win.

Quote
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L  1 +0
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
L  1 +3
L  1 +2
L  1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L  1 +2
L  1 +1
W 1 +2
L  1 +1
W 1 +2
L  1 +1
L  1 +0
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L  1 +0
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L  1 +0
L  1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
L  1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L  1 +2
L  1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
L  1 +5
L  1 +4
L  1 +3
L  2 +1
W 2 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
L  1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
W 1 +7
L  1 +6
W 1 +8
W 1 +9
L  1 +8
W 1 +9
L  1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
L  1 +9
L  1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
L  1 +10
L  1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
W 1 +13
L  1 +12
L  1 +11
L  1 +10
W 2 +12
W 1 +13
L  1 +12
L  1 +11
L  1 +10
L  2 +8
W 2 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.
-
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 6
User actions