Do we have any Italian speakers here?  I came across a site by Jonathan Visconti (peddling his systems of course) but there was an interesting topic here - http://www.sistemaroulette.it/vincere-nel-limite-del-possibile/#comment-137

The reason I am interested is because I am trying to track down an article which is referenced in the discussion - by Sergio.  By using babelfish I can get an idea of what is being said but can't actually join any discussion and ask questions because I do not speak Italian.

Just wondered if there is anybody here who could comment.

thanks.

A couple of key phrases not translated well were -

sulla ricerca di un evento sfavorevole ma a scarto controllato, and
mai una progressione comunque), vi consigliamo un evento svantaggioso al pagamento compreso tra il 55% e il 75% di percentuale di svantaggio.

My old friend, Coussin Gonflable, speaks fluent Italian.  I'll try to find him.   

Thanks Sam.

These key phrases say:

sulla ricerca di un evento sfavorevole ma a scarto controllato,
"in light of an unfavourable event, although controlled loss"

Vi consigliamo di non tentare altre strade tranne quella dei cicli chiusi del terzo. Sono gli unici che non producono scarti elevati e dove potete applicare una buona montante in perdita, (mai una progressione comunque), vi consigliamo un evento svantaggioso al pagamento compreso tra il 55% e il 75% di percentuale di svantaggio.
"We advise you not to try other ways aside from the one of the third closed cycles. They are the only ones that don't produce high margins and where you can apply a good degree of bankroll while still at loss, (however never in progression), we advise a disadvantaged event at payment within 55% and 75% of disadvantage"


A young friend translated that for me... maybe Sam's friend could do more.

I have searched for that Sergio article too with no luck yet... I'll let you know.

My friend, Coussin Gonflable, is currently hunting aardvarks and cannot be contacted.

Sorry.........

Translation:
Winning in the limit of the possibleosted by Jonathan Visconti on August 1st, 2012 in Our Products | 4 commentsWinning in the limit of the possible I started to get close to this road after scopeto the thrill of play my LIFE in one go! If you want to know the history of stroke CLICK HERE When I began to think about winning as far as possible I had set out to CREATE IO vincente.Il my system that has highlighted the fact that I had to be to create my system to win at roulette  ,  is a testimony to the fact that the best system to take the carpet is created on the basis of its ambition, its capital and the ability to be as' cool as possible whenever you are faced with a deficit also important.My goal was to create a method that had these characteristics:
-I do not expose to big bucks during the waning stages
-Fosse still easy to follow carpet
-Fosse stable allowing me to have an excellent chance of success in the carpet during its use
-Fosse manageable with a few pieces of capital
-Had play times "human" and not put me in a position to have games that lasted for days.
Based on these considerations, I tried to calmly analyze everything 'that I had used up to that time.
Analyzing all systems, and all methodologies that knew nothing until then to meet all the above points.
At one point, putting his head in the midst of the hands, again and again in an inventory of everything 'that I knew, I took an article that was for me, "lighting"
The article in question the whole place When, many years ago, I approached the roulette and methods to beat the law of the third and equal mass systems had seemed to me the two things that you think to beat the "machine". After years of tests and studies, I'm sure the way is it.
Cecil Swan The method, considered in his time to winning equal mass, was shipwrecked in the computer test, and is exposed to the fee to zero as he wishes, the 'only law that really works then, that the mathematical calculation of probabilities. law of the third, it is actually the law of chance, that is in favor of roulette and not the player, because thanks to the numbers that come out and those that repeat, that equal mass, the machine is unbeatable. In fact, if it was defective (and in the past there have been), the law is not respected and just do the numerical differences for benefits. But now no longer the case, the cylinders are perfect and are "shot" between the tables. The system Nuguyen, that exploited the differences, using the formulas of Prouvst, has the sole function of dilute the game, because the expectations are often very long. But try (it is among the easiest to test with the spreadsheet) in a million stays real, loses 2%.
Whatever combination you want to consider, read the third, figures, etc. .. in equal mass is the probability that then ends with the prevalence. Of course, the benefits can last for thousands of shots and give the illusion, but the illusion is. The leeway on the simple chances, which has the advantage of calculating the odds in favor of the player, it is unmanageable. The trial of the method Vessieler, the attack on the deficit chance than twice the average deviation is successful only in theory because it can switch from one discovered tens of thousands of pieces before clearing the gap, therefore unplayable.
's conclusion is that the equal mass is only good for those who sell chimeras, and often at great expense. Roulette is unbeatable? No, but the road is only the mast at a loss.
Lorenzo's Wife, the best scholar of modern systems for roulette, he had already understood and demonstrated. The problem to solve is the distribution of events. The "Garcia" is an example of theoretical perfection, wins when it presents the series of seven or greater, and these are always present, but after how many shots? It does not matter if average is 1.56 per 100 strokes, may also be absent for 500 boules and bring to ruin the player.
If all the systems engineers to concentrate on a single target, or filter for the "homogeneous distribution of events" even if they were in the house's favor does not matter, with a riser leak, the car would stop, in fact the chances of winning with certainty even a shot every 10 would be enough to definitively defeat. Along this road had moved dr. First Benedetti, whose system plays a particular Alembert trying to oppose the dominances of the game, dividing it into many partial matches. But the system is a failure because the dominances are not mathematically predictable and the player in an attempt to escape them falls equally in a new dominance that may be contrary (about 50% of each share), I stopped in its experimentation about 2000 pieces overdraft. The "filter" to which I think, should be to work mathematically.
's why the path to success is a pillar applied the law of the third. Because only in this case the events occur at a precise number of shots, ie within a
HERE BEGINS THE DISCUSSION OF BROTHERS.We are two students in engineering with a passion for roulette, and until the appearance of this site groping in the dark or better sprecavamo energies in the wrong direction. Having the chance to use the program in Lab View (virtual instrument engineering workbench) we have installed two million stays, a million and a million generated by algorithm real.
And this bank we have implemented the theories of Zantiflore, Montani, Nugujen, because there seemed to be the most suitable for authors looking for a system to favor selection of shots. But the results were invalid.Then the discovery of your website, which at first had not given too much importance, then, among the articles a shock. Sergio's article on the search for an adverse event but controlled waste, has opened a new horizon.
We set the software in an opposite manner, looking full of horses and triplets, the combination with the standard deviation less though heavily loss payment was a difficult task, we investigated repetition and frequency, closures, etc. ... all within their respective cycles of the third.We have isolated different combinations, and we have focused on a combination inside the loop of the triplets. But they could also be others. In two million stays only of 11 was the maximum deviation from this combination. We have therefore devised a pillar recovery, which obviously exposes much as the principle is that of Garcia, but always falls.
system includes 2000 pieces of capital, the trial of two million stays gave a surplus of 450,000 pieces and a max discovered in 1600.About a month of application to the mat against the French hospitable Casino (maximum two days rest in the same casino) has already yielded 4000 units of profit. In all likelihood we will make a lot of money. We will never sell your system to any number in the world, we believe that it has not money, is the ultimate solution.
We owe everything to the article by Sergio. But at the same time we can not really having anything to anyone because the system was the result of a major research and programming. After all, anyone who comes to solving complex something always starts with the work of another.
seemed right There, however, a big thanks to Sergio and the Web Site If we allowed a Board, is mainly for this reason that we are writing to follow our lead, you need a programmer and a software utmost professionalism, because only through the computer you can isolate the event.Do not write, this address is secondary and the mail will not be controlled, we do not sell the system and what we had to say we have already said in this post, the claim that shines through a few posts having to make public the winning systems seems comical , we would do so even under torture and we are not selfish but who finds the treasure if he keeps it tight, your way must be to cooperate, we are only two, and we did.——————————————————————————————————————-SECOND INTERVENTION OF "GAMBLINBROTHER"Accepting various invitations, we'll post the data for the first four months of operations in casinos French and English, the next data will send it later this year.We passed the 14,000 pieces of gain. The maximum overdraft, considering the game can be difficult, it was 850 pieces, although in a financial sense we have never had an overdraft maximum, because the system was productive from the start and the capital base of 2000 pieces was added to the winnings, in essence we played with the money of the casinos. The maximum bet is 50 units, but it can be more, because the mast taken can not exceed this limit, but increase the number of recoveries required.
We advise you not groped other ways except that of the closed loop of the third. They are the ones that do not produce differences in price and where you can apply a good upright at a loss, (never a progression anyway), we recommend an event disadvantageous to pay between 55% and 75% percentage of disadvantage.
For event search right, ie with a deviation below and above all controlled ie without high concentrations both in the presence and absence, there should be an analysis computer, because the data is not on the basis of statistical mathematics but.We reiterate the thanks to Sergio -----------THIRD OF INTERVENTION "GAMBLINBROTHER"One of the first systems that we tested was Johnson. adopting the preferred choice by the author 50 pieces gain in 7 rounds with stop stake to 20 pieces, applied differential on all three of chance.Nothing to say on returns, has come to make even 500% of the pieces played. We used real permanence of 1000000 hits.
At a time when the initial game has created an overdraft of 12,000 pieces, then recovered to reach a final settlement of more than 3,000,000 pieces of gain.For us, the test result is negative, an overdraft of 12,000 is excessive and certainly not programmable, as there may be more.We realized, however, the potential of martini modified by Johnson. Probably not applied directly to the chance but with a system that contains the waste can be a solution.
Given that the problem is just waste, because once you get to max bet, it is divided and the terms of recovery are getting longer, the game becomes long, and if the downturn persists becomes interminable, the test lasted for 1000 shots.

Thanks.  As you can see, the translator's do quite well but subtlety is lost and some choices of phrase are, I am sure, don't quite convey the author's meaning.  Any clues on the Sergio article?