+ Register

[MarignyGrilleau]

+1

[Ralph]

A roulette boot camp!  Yay!  I'm there!

I'm also alongside Spike in terms of his stated aims in the first post.  Any big problem is best broken down into littler problems.  Or even, by using Occam's Razor, shave it down to its most basic question.  I am of the belief that the bet selection is both core and key.

Cartesian methods is very often successfull, but has some traps. The tiny part may mot give positive result unless another part of the whole is coworking.

[sqzbox]

True, Ralph.  The key here is to find the minimal yet complete unto itself question.  We want to study the whole but not more than the whole.  I submit that the bet selection can be considered a minimal whole.

[ll l lll ll l lll]

I only bet the EC's. The entire game can be distilled down
to the EC's. The inner layout is irrelevant.

You focus on series of singles, doubles, triples, etc....in the EC's.  You bet with experience based on the way these series behave in a typical random stream.  A typical random stream contains many singles, fewer doubles, and even fewer triples, etc....With experience the changing of these series can be anticipated without huge drawdowns.  There are no huge losing streaks.  You can also look for other sequences, and anticipate or "guess" for change.

[TwoCatSam]

"Or even, by using Occam's Razor, shave it down to its most basic question.", wrote the Brown Box.

So, Squeeze, what would you consider roulette's most basic question?

Or is there one at all?

Samster

[AMK]

You focus on series of singles, doubles, triples, etc....in the EC's.  You bet with experience based on the way these series behave in a typical random stream.  A typical random stream contains many singles, fewer doubles, and even fewer triples, etc....With experience the changing of these series can be anticipated without huge drawdowns.  There are no huge losing streaks.  You can also look for other sequences, and anticipate or "guess" for change.

II I III II I III, i  finally understand your forum name/sequence : )


Only took about a year and a half.


I assume you have been playing in this style for a while.


Ego has done a lot of great work with series as you know.


If you have a lot of experience playing series would you mind starting a thread with insights, methods etc.

[sqzbox]

Samster - well, in the context of the totality of playing the game, which comprises bet selection combined with MM which may include progressions, entry/exit, etc. etc. it seems to me that bet selection, as a single topic, is an abstractable component and is minimal in the sense that it shouldn't be broken down further since the bits then become "parts of the whole" and one of those "bits" is insufficient unto itself to lead to success.  But I have to confess that this is so only because I believe that bet selection is the key component.  Others believe that it is the totality that makes for a winning strategy - and that each of the components contribute in such a way that it is ONLY the totality that allows for success.  But I am not of that view. It is my personal belief that ONLY a successful bet selection strategy leads to success and that all the other stuff is just maximising (or potentially minimising) that success.

[ll l lll ll l lll]

II I III II I III, i  finally understand your forum name/sequence : )


Only took about a year and a half.


I assume you have been playing in this style for a while.


Ego has done a lot of great work with series as you know.


If you have a lot of experience playing series would you mind starting a thread with insights, methods etc.

I've just recently taken an interest to playing this way.  It is very effective with practice!