Quote from: TheLaw on February 29, 2016, 09:01:09 PM
This actually makes logical sense..........anytime someone writes about a large number of spins, they lose all of the "get-rich-quick" crowd.

From my perspective roulette is not a run of 100 meters (speed) but a marathon (endurance).

You have to take a ''bird's view'' as Bayes had previously mentioned, you should consider as one whole long term session, not small parts of hitting the luck (when you have it) and running away before luck turns against you!

I don't know about you but personally I'm not looking for snatches, I'm looking for rock solid, consistent results!

I've got no problem playing for hours if I'm winning. Anyway I'm gonna test it on small stakes. 0,10 -100 . Make it or break it 

Millions of spins...would be unbelievable if it tanks in my hands. Testing start tomorrow

Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 12:15:35 AM
I've got no problem playing for hours if I'm winning. Anyway I'm gonna test it on small stakes. 0,10 -100 . Make it or break it 

Millions of spins...would be unbelievable if it tanks in my hands. Testing start tomorrow

For 0.1 a bankroll of 60 will be sufficient, it's like building up a pyramid, you begin from the lower levels and gradually you'll reach the top.

A small compounding interest can go a long way.

I'd wish you luck but you won't need it.

Anyone know where you can play .10 stakes in US online?

Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 12:29:14 AM
For 0.1 a bankroll of 60 will be sufficient, it's like building up a pyramid, you begin from the lower levels and gradually you'll reach the top.

A small compounding interest can go a long way.

I'd wish you luck but you won't need it.

Thx Blue_Angel. ... I will share my results good or bad. And with 0,10 it's fun testing. No pressure.

On RNG I could do it pretty fast. Of course I would click till one ec is faaaar behind and then start. (Takes max 10-15minutes). Or the airball that spits out a number every 30 seconds.

Or live only ?

Denzie,
Have you been familiarized with the rules of my method?

I know only 2 RNG for 0.1 and 1 with 0.2 but I wouldn't recommended them.

At Dublinbet casino they have live tables (not studio) starting from 1, my local casinos offer airball roulette from 1 for EC's, so that's the absolute minimum for me (600 BR).

Yeah, I know the rules. Play whatever ec is most far behind.
RNG isn't that bad though. I've been playing with it the last couple of weeks. It gives the same results as a live session. (Only if your going for some dealer signature then it's a no go).

I made a thread simular to your method. But the progression was different. No idea why I stopped playing it. It did won . Anyway I clicked till an ec was around 44% and then I go in. Deepest I saw was 26%. And then it shoots up like a rocket.

Btw... go check on cc
Nick did 1 million spin...
Congratulations my friend.

Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 01:41:44 AM
Yeah, I know the rules. Play whatever ec is most far behind.
RNG isn't that bad though. I've been playing with it the last couple of weeks. It gives the same results as a live session. (Only if your going for some dealer signature then it's a no go).

I made a thread simular to your method. But the progression was different. No idea why I stopped playing it. It did won . Anyway I clicked till an ec was around 44% and then I go in. Deepest I saw was 26%. And then it shoots up like a rocket.

Actually I'm waiting for no more than the initial 37 outcomes, at that time I'm betting the least shown EC regardless of the number of times has already appeared.
Then I bet continuously till the end of the session, always following the most unbalanced EC pair.

I've a question for ALL of you, do you think that by applying the same betting schedule but for the most shown EC would generated better results?
If yes, why?

Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 02:00:38 AM
Actually I'm waiting for no more than the initial 37 outcomes, at that time I'm betting the least shown EC regardless of the number of times has already appeared.
Then I bet continuously till the end of the session, always following the most unbalanced EC pair.

I've a question for ALL of you, do you think that by applying the same betting schedule but for the most shown EC would generated better results?
If yes, why?

Because you're following a streak, as opposed to the ec that's behind.

One is due vs another is ahead?

Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 01:54:07 AM
Btw... go check on cc
Nick did 1 million spin...
Congratulations my friend.

Just to clarify, he used a similar system, but not exact rules of this method. It did make it to 1,000,000 though!!!

His average was +1 unit per 55 spins vs +1 per 10 spins with this method.

"I also tried a very similar system to this one with the following small differences.

Instead of waiting 37 spins to get the least hit EC, I start betting after the 1st spin.  Blue Angel I believe  only bet one EC at a time even if there was a tie.  I bet all EC that are tied so after the first spin I would be betting on 5 EC that have not hit.  Eventually you will only have 1 EC to bet on but this gives us more action to start rather than wait for 37 spins before betting.

As soon as a new EC becomes the least hit, I start betting. No waiting until the 37 spin cycle completes.

Those are the only changes I can think of.

The graph of the results for 1,000,000 spins attached.

Cheers

Nick"

With his method, there was a 5422 unit draw-down and 128 highest bet. That's still pretty impressive for a million spins!!!

Since this method aims for long term profit I'm going with the probability which means that at some point the deviations will start to decrease towards the average.

It's different to play 50 spins which variance could dominate, if the event's horizon would be short I'd have went with the flow instead of the probability.

98% of the world's gamblers will not play 1,000,000 results during their lifetime, except if science finds the way to make us immortals, not like highlander but without death from natural causes.
As unbelievable it might sound it's NOT impossible, actually it has been rumored that in 15 to 20 years from now such practice will be considered formality due to genetic engineering and nanotechnology!

In this case we could continue our sessions into the millions of results and expanding our records into the infinity!
For the rest 2% of the gamblers' population, who by the way could be undercovered vampires, only 10% of them will encounter such session as Nick's.

Guys, we need to work under PRACTICAL terms, in other words what we CAN expect during our gambling lifetime!
That example could be equally possible as a very large comet crushing on earth, astronomical possibility, what's the point?!

Quote from: Blue_Angel on March 01, 2016, 03:17:32 AM
Since this method aims for long term profit I'm going with the probability which means that at some point the deviations will start to decrease towards the average.

It's different to play 50 spins which variance could dominate, if the event's horizon would be short I'd have went with the flow instead of the probability.

98% of the world's gamblers will not play 1,000,000 results during their lifetime, except if science finds the way to make us immortals, not like highlander but without death from natural causes.
As unbelievable it might sound it's NOT impossible, actually it has been rumored that in 15 to 20 years from now such practice will be considered formality due to genetic engineering and nanotechnology!

In this case we could continue our sessions into the millions of results and expanding our records into the infinity!
For the rest 2% of the gamblers' population, who by the way could be undercovered vampires, only 10% of them will encounter such session as Nick's.

Guys, we need to work under PRACTICAL terms, in other words what we CAN expect during our gambling lifetime!
That example could be equally possible as a very large comet crushing on earth, astronomical possibility, what's the point?!

I think the 1,000,000 spins was just to prove that the method actually worked long-term. If you say 1000, then they demand 2000......if 10,000, then they want 100,000. Just staying one step ahead of the critics.

@ 50 spins per hour it would take nearly 10 years playing 40hrs/wk to hit 1,000,000..........so if you wanted to play for a living.......

If you put it this way it's not far away from the truth and I don't find it so much 128 units bet for such extreme events, but 5422 units draw-down is quite BIG drawdown.

I've tested with and without money countless methods, mine and from others and if I've learned one thing from such experience is that the 90% of all times a bad method doesn't take too long to show its weakness.
90% of bad methods have been exceed my virtual limit within 1000 results, 5% has failed within 5000 outcomes and 5% have surpassed every expectation, FHG is one of them.

Session on RNG (Unibet , NetEnt software )
+ 35 .... highest step 4 units