Twister,


As I understand the method Turbo just randomly picked one of each section. Each line for example has the same hit expectancy so it doesn't matter which one you pick. I could be wrong though.

Posts from rouletteforum.cc : )


AMK:

Thank you for your great work atlantis.

It is always inspiring to see the genius in roulette players.

Wonder what it would have been like to have Einstein on the forum?


He must have had some methods : ) 



atlantis:

Hi amk,


This system has grown out of your very own inspirational CODE 4, so I owe gratitude to you for your own work on that wonderful idea!

I should add, but of course you will know, that this system requires TIME and especially the important and demanding key virtues of PATIENCE and DISCIPLINE. All the same you can speed up qualifiers and get more bets in your session by recording the equivalent "col-doz-col-doz" format from your numbers side by side with the above original so you can bet for the matching dozen also using the same qualifying rules...   

For example if the last 4 numbers were 16,19,3,28 then you record:


2a1a Lw      and  the reversal       a2c3  LL


A.

Sorry Gizmotron,


Where can I find the charts etc and I will review them.


Thanks for your help.

Gizmotron,


I think you would agree that if you were a moderator you would ruffle some feathers, and in "most" cases by accident  : )


With all due respect, it might be a good idea to write a book. Your understanding seems to be vast and profitable.


But perhaps you might chose to do so after you develop your software.


Until such a point we can only try and decipher your guidance.

You will have to review Soggets "An Early Xmas Gift" method to understand this tweak, perhaps not.


http://betselection.cc/private-general-board/an-early-christmas-gift-(-hopefully-)/msg4814/#msg4814

This tweak also had one loss over Soggets 10,000 spins but would have won on the next spin.


This one loss was -1200, Soggets one loss was -3000





We mark down all numbers which come in twice and bet on them up to 4 numbers.


Then we continue tracking all numbers which come in twice as with Soggets method.


Once we have a number which has hit 3 times we erase the most recent from our 4 two number bets and put the number which has hit 3 times in its place.


We continue to track all new two numbers and three numbers.


If another number hits 3 times we add this to our 4 numbers and remove the second most recent two number bet and add the newest number which hit 3 times.


It would look like this



1       (2)  (3)  (4) (5)  (6)

2       2      2      2     3     3
2       2      2      3     3     3
2       2      3      3     3     3
2       3      3      3     3     4
2
2
2
3 ... first 3 (2)
2
2
3 ... second 3  (3)
3 ...  third 3  (4)
2
3 ... forth 3  (5)   we now have 4 numbers hit 3 times and we continue betting these until a number
2                          appears which has hit 4 times then remove the most recent 3# and replace it with a 4#
3
3
4 ... first 4  (6)
3 ... our first number to hit 3 times is landed (this is the coldest of all numbers which hit 3 times




My theory with this approach is that we are continually playing the coldest repeaters and adding the hottest repeaters. These we continue to move down the 4 numbers we bet.



ps
Thank you Sogget for all your hard work. Without you this method and its stats would not have been found!

Gizmotron,


I think you would agree that even by your standards your own play cannot be validated to be effective longterm.




You play in your style, and you have done well for years.


JL plays in his style and he has done well for years.




For people researching roulette you are both great examples of how we can be successful playing a game which is determined to be impossible to prosper from longterm. In this case longterm is several years.


Instead of going back an forth why not see the connection between you two, you are both successful playing with methods which cannot possible win longterm mathematically speaking.


Your comments about HAR are duly noted. But your comments about HAR being pointless to try could just as easily be said about your style of play which has also been duly noted.


All we can do as fellow roulette players is state how we have been performing and this is what I honestly believe everybody on this forum is doing.


To say another is lying etc just doesn't make sense. Sure there are those sort of people but the odds are very very small we will come across them : )

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
Please don't forget the context. It was with regards to mother hens. I've already proven that HAR is a fallacy. At the start I wrote a sim that tested Six Million spins per test. Written into the sim was actual mindless hit & run tactics.

In every test there was no significant difference in using it or in leaving it out. It changed nothing.  I ran the tests more than 100 times. There was no significant difference. THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON THIS FORUM REGARDING HAR BEING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE ARE FALSE. MY CHOICE OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT THIS QUALIFIES THESE CLAIMS AS LIES. THIS CONCLUSION IS AN EARNED RESPONSE TO THE PAST DISPLAY OF CHARACTER ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THIS CLAIMER.

If these are not intentional lies then they are the illusions of a person that has been fooling himself for many years, also his own claim.

Hello Gizmotron,


Would it be possible to run a test over 6 million spins playing a specific tactic?


The tactic is to play PB after a virtual loss.


Once a loss is observed we bet that the next game will not be a loss.


Would be interesting to see what the results are.




With all due respect I think it is possible to perform well with HAR, the longterm is relative.


In essence 6 million spins might be irrelevant. See how many sessions of 20,000 spins succeed. 20K spins would represent 1 year of play. These 6 million spins then represent 300 years of playing. I only need the next 5 to be successful.


I would also stress that a method like PB should not be played in its basic format. There is MM and knowledge needed of winning aspects of the method, such as its double loss performance. Based on JL stats I can only conclude that if this methods strikerate is under 5/1 at times the double losses can keep the overall strikerate positive.

Who might I ask is Flukey on this forum Ophis?


As in Flukey Luke?

No worries Bally : )


I added this to my post while you were posting your comment!


"Even Bugs Bunny beat Yosemite Sam's rigged roulette wheel"  : )



Your doing very well Yosemite, just thought it was a funny picture, you won't find many like that : )

Quote from: SamNL on December 27, 2012, 10:34:46 PM
RESULTS UPDATE FOR PATTERN BREAKER 27/12/12

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 13

TOTAL GAMES WON 11

TOTAL GAMES LOST 2

STRIKERATE 11/2

DOUBLE LOSSES ZERO

LONGEST WINNING STREAK (CURRENT) 7--HIGH-LOW

Bugs Bunny Episode description online:


"Even Bugs Bunny beat Yosemite Sam's rigged roulette wheel"  : )

Quote from: Ophis on December 27, 2012, 10:58:57 PM
Yes. But the problem is that short term pattern is a part of longer term pattern and this pattern is a part of even longer pattern and so on...

that's why its REALLY hard to find any consistent bet, because all patterns we can notice are changing all the time.

Still, by this logic there must even be a pattern to this overall picture.


It is not that roulette won't demonstrate this overall consistence, from small to large/fractiles but rather that the casinos are monopolizing on setting fixed parameters which will prevent us from taking advantage of this overall consistency. 


Even though this may be the case I still fully believe that an overall advantage can be achieved.

Hello Ophis!


I fully agree with you.


If we follow this logic we can only conclude that everything is a pattern : )

VLS, what is happening here! : )


My feeling tells me there might be something amazing in this multiple table layout.

Lady K, if I may.


If you are going to play in a B&M casino or LIVE online then I feel it would be wise to play several methods, methods which are simple and you can keep track of easily. This would be the most efficient way you can spend your limited time. Chuancy47 has a successful playing style which I might add came from JohnLegends example.


As JL mentions when playing several methods one method can recoup part of another methods losses or loss. Wise instruction.


Please do keep in mind that I am not a real roulette player, not yet.


I research and try to formulate my game plan. Only by actually playing do you become a real roulette player. A method which has perhaps been tested and fails 1 million spins could still be very profitable for a real roulette player.


Which methods are you looking to use Lady K?

H/O H/O H/O  : )


A merry Xmas to all!