Hopefully, some of the "YES" voters in the poll will post a selection of methods here...

Quote from: esoito on January 02, 2013, 08:20:24 AM
Hopefully, some of the "YES" voters in the poll will post a selection of methods here...

great idea
common guys, lets see what you got

Several days later: 

15 YES voters at present.  And not one of them has posted a method for us!!

Why is that, d'you think?

Beats me...

They never said they had the "method". They maybe just agreed that it is possible a winning flat bet exists. So they are saying "yes it exists somewhere" not "I have it and won't say". Well I hope its not the latter.

Quote from: Juiced91 on January 04, 2013, 12:14:40 AM
They never said they had the "method". They maybe just agreed that it is possible a winning flat bet exists. So they are saying "yes it exists somewhere" not "I have it and won't say". Well I hope its not the latter.

Hmmm...

The survey question asks: Does a consistent winning FLAT BET already exist?

So if 15 people simply say 'Yes' and no methods are listed here to support the 'yes' then perhaps there's an element of guesswork involved in their answers...or maybe just wishful thinking...!
If that's the case then we're no further ahead. 

Some could be forgiven for asking if the survey has any intrinsic value.  Has it?

I believe i posted 2 methods that can win more than lose Flat Bet.

I had some success with Juggler. http://betselection.cc/straight-up/the-juggler/ +3036 in 1500 live spins , from my testing. It's very similar to Soggett's system. But playing with 7 numbers. I have tested it with 5 numbers, it works pretty good. Although I lost patience with it playing live, because I got a neutral trend for 200 spins etc, it requires many spins.

I'm working on Juggler 3, that will be a mix of hot and cold numbers and temporary hotnumbers but with a postive progression. That's my idea, anyway. See how it goes

They are at the poll thread - does-a-consistent-winning-flat-bet-already-exist/


See reply #38 & #43 in particular:  http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/does-a-consistent-winning-flat-bet-already-exist/30/ 

I am not one of the responders to the poll.  Not because I don't want to take part - but because the question is poorly worded and so the intent is not clear. Hence I am unable to answer because I am not sure what the question is.  No offence intended - truly!   

I have to confess that I can be a bit anal when it comes to language usage.  I try very hard to be clear and unambiguous in everything I write - I read and re-read a number of times before I publish anything - even daily emails between friends.  MG - please learn the difference between "lose"and loose"- <big grin here!!> 

If you had said - do you believe that a consistent flat bet winning method exists - or - do you believe that you possess a consistent flat bet winning method - then I would have answered and I believe there would be no confusion at this point.  Judging by your comment - And not one of them has posted a method for us! then I can only assume that you really meant to ask the latter.  I suspect a lot of people answered the former.

This is a very interesting and challenging thread - potentially.


There has even been some debate over just what is meant by the title*. Surely it is one of the toughest and most pivotal of all quests in roulette and the author of the thread title I am sure knew exactly what he was doing - so I do disagree with the remark from Sqzbox (lol).


Ironically, the term 'consistent' itself implies in logic a lack of contradiction and thus an establishment  of harmony, not one of division, ambiguity and confusion.


*is this the title of the thread where the question is asked, or the title of this thread requesting the bets to be listed?  lol.


Perhaps the author of the thread in which we are now writing may have intended a slight tongue-in -cheek quality to the title. It seems so simple, so innocent, to request further detail, once a voter has taken the side of the proposition 'yes' " - does a consistent flat bet already exist?


Just list them here then, says our host, those bets that could transform your world and potentially be worth a fortune. Lets have them then!  Come on! There must be at least 15 of them or more.....


Wait a moment. I don't think that those who voted "yes" are naive optimists, or gullible, easily persuaded victims of fraud,  or secretive agents of dark forces of a new world order, or just selfish individuals. They are simply reserving their right to retain the privacy and the value of their work.


Parallel with this is the spirit of working together in this Forum for a collective greater good. Now this is another matter. Given the true spirit of that being accepted, then it is likely that individuals will contribute  some research and some key principles and shape them in such a way as to help us all.


It is said the teacher learns most in any class, so in shaping and forming and ordering our thoughts, then progress can be made in more effective, more 'efficient' communication, working toward the goal of success in roulette.

XXVV, that is so clearly, fluently and unambiguously stated.

As an aside, I'm a bit worried you were able to discern so accurately what was in my mind when I set up the thread!! LOL 

Quote from: XXVV on January 06, 2013, 09:23:27 PM

Just list them here then, says our host, those bets that could transform your world and potentially be worth a fortune. Lets have them then!  Come on! There must be at least 15 of them or more.....


Wait a moment. I don't think that those who voted "yes" are naive optimists, or gullible, easily persuaded victims of fraud,  or secretive agents of dark forces of a new world order, or just selfish individuals. They are simply reserving their right to retain the privacy and the value of their work.


Parallel with this is the spirit of working together in this Forum for a collective greater good. Now this is another matter. Given the true spirit of that being accepted, then it is likely that individuals will contribute  some research and some key principles and shape them in such a way as to help us all.


It is said the teacher learns most in any class, so in shaping and forming and ordering our thoughts, then progress can be made in more effective, more 'efficient' communication, working toward the goal of success in roulette.

I guess i put some suggestions on how success with flat bet can be achieved. They are there without any comment, any question, any remark, so i believe i made a valid contribution for the thread. That is my approach. Similar ones can be found here from members as VLS, Gizmotron, Bayes, Superman, Drazen, ...
Why would anyone expect an amazing thing like that on a silver plate without contributing with some work?
Cheers