Independent-trial games poll here: are there better or worse methods?

Can we say we have a better system than the next guy / bettor?

...surely every one of us has an opinion regarding this; so... what's yours?

(Feel free to elaborate about your side / opinion at length - So we all can contrast and make the most from the discussion from this interesting -and fundamental- topic).

Of course there are better and worse systems.

If a system is created after understanding the basic nature of game and its harshest probabilities, that will do better than just playing anything.

Voted yes. If they were all equal why be here then? It is obvious that people who believe that there are different levels of systems to play will say yes. most of those who attend this forum. Whoever tells me that the system of duplicate on red or double-up is the same as a good sound betting strategy deserves his 17 consecutive blacks. I believe here we have already gone through that stage. Now we focus on finding the best strategy that suits our style of play which is dividend-bearing of course.

Roulette methods do not have to depend on the results of a single independent trial. The tactic for a session can be the culmination of a number of continuous or interrupted spins. A good example would be getting more reds than (blacks & greens) in a sequence of spins. Just about everyone knows that I seek sleeping dozens, like prospecting for gold nuggets. They are everywhere. You just need to work to find them.

Speaking from personal experience the answer is yes.

After making some of my own systems I can vouch for the fact that some were hopeless some were good and a few were very good.

Obviously the very good ones were better than the hopeless ones.

This is a great question.


On public record I have a variety of methods which have ranged from 'promising' to 'still needing more work' ( or 'hopeless' as Sputnik tartly described it).


In private I have material which is able to flat stake profit and can be applied over several sets ( from one to say twelve or more being sets of nine numbers and their various characteristics) given a suitable RB is applied for every set utilised. This will never be made public but I did start to explain some of the theory of this ( some of which I deleted but not all) in the the earlier series of threads still accessible on this Blog. It is a credit to Vic that this all remains intact.


It is a fantastic business model and sits in the studio workshop till 2015 when sufficient resources will be invested. Other (financial) business is taking priority in the interim.


For years I, and several colleagues have searched for an efficient and smart bet, with characteristics that meet required criteria.


Some bets are suitable for bot programs, others not, in my view, and in this latter case I just will apply live at the table with high unit value and a large bank. Real enjoyment and quite theatrical awaiting key coups. Play need not be prolonged with higher unit values. As always, timing is everything.


Some bets can just be switched on and do their thing, ideal for bots and I believe the WF4 +LWB method with a few little overlays can do just that, and this tuning research with simulation is underway. As earlier stated, I will publish guidelines and helpful notes when I know for sure thanks to the work of trusted colleagues. Expect an answer during June.


The simple WF3 on its own was just a little exercise.


The overlays I refer to are switches, triggers to go live or go virtual, or progress or stop loss, or step in unit value.


Listening to the gold prospecting of Gizmo, I am most impressed and well done.


Martin Blakey, despite the acidic criticism ( why are some people so full of bitterness?) runs live at the table with an assistant, an ongoing review of sets of 16 numbers, and targets relatively short cycle aberrations ( such as sleeper groups). In my personal view he could also run warm to hot clusters but if it works, why change it?


Green Guy - well done


Albalaha - logical yes

Wannawin - yes of course we are engaging with winning strategies for our personal and unique application - now that is Art.

Voted yes. Very interesting to know that there is not a single negative vote.

Quote from: greenguy on June 02, 2014, 01:27:28 AM
Obviously the very good ones were better than the hopeless ones.

I think Strawberryelephant will agree with this.

Hi everyone my name is Mick
I am new here and vote yes as well.
I think all systems will work at some point but the good systems should work more often and for longer periods of play. For example to bet on a single then cover the single with side bets that win small amounts until the single lands will be better than to just bet on even chance bets

Are there better / worse systems?

Here is what somebody posted on another forum.

''There are no good shoes or bad shoes, just
bad systems and methods. I know that sounds
trite, but it's true. It must be the shoe that's
bad, it couldn't be my inadequate method of
playing. Most people develop systems that
play about 40% of the shoe, and when the shoe
isn't playing their methods game, they're
screwed. So instead of improving their game,
they wander around looking for the right
shoes.''

That just about sums things up regarding this question.

40% isn't going to cut the mustard and you are going to be spending either more time at the casino playing through 'bad' shoes and losing money or wasting a lot of time looking for conditions that could change instantly the moment you sit down and you don't know how to handle them.

It's an acquired skill to get that level up to 70% or 80% and it's every players responsibility to learn the mechanics of their chosen game inside out. The benefits are enormous. You can walk in and out and be done in 15-20 spins.

An interesting question.

Yet, 3 weeks later, only 14 votes.

That's despite around 30 or so guests daily and close to 700 members!

A sign of the times? Are most folk simply empty vessels waiting to be filled?

[Delete this if you want to, VLS. Just making a sad point.]

"Are most folk simply empty vessels waiting to be filled?" >> Yes.

Ken