+ Register

[Razor]

what?

[Kattila]

No confusion here.

Good luck with this, Viper.

Hi MBB(omb...s)
i have same opinion.... could be V....

[AMK]

Razor,

I always care!

Could you describe your playing style a little?


If nothing is described than most of us cannot spend a lot of time researching the subject.




At least some solid hints.


I would if I had the HG : )




My opinion is still the same, if there is a HG it will never be accepted on a large scale. Not enough people following the forums.


Who is going to believe that you can be successful in roulette longterm?


" I have tests to prove it!" : )

[Bayes]

Good luck with this, Viper.

Spot on. 

[Razor]

I searched the google translation and Viper is a kind of snake.
I can t understand why you call me like that.

Anyway this thread wasn t for the perpose of giving hints and clues but it was about finding a coder to make my method.
I would never tease you with clues and stuff but since you need it ...
Try to take advantage of the imbalances of the Ecs.(or any other bet)
Do not fall into the trap of focusing and betting only on one imbalance.(situation)
The bet for the correction of the imbalance must be at the same time a bet that corrects an other(or more) imbalance.One imbalance can continue and make you lose...but what if this imbalance is assosiated with more imbalances that when it will start correcting it self,the other ones will do the same.(this is the power of the method and something that never seen before)
Work this concept  in a spins frame.
Make triggers values and bet lighter on light(but serius) imbalances and heavier on grater imbalances.(but never with progressions)

These are my findings.

[Albalaha]

Razor,
        You are going in correct direction but nothing works without money management.

[Razor]

When you are increasing the accuracy of predictions you do not need MM. 
Maybe my results so far are based on luck...
I have researched roulette so much and I have seen that everything fails so I can t be exited easily any more.
ONLY when I ll see the long run test with the code I will be positive or negative about my method

[D1]

Spot on. 

Never again ?

[Razor]

Ok I will update this thread according to the programs results.
Good luck with any of your projects.

[sqzbox]

Razor - good luck with this.  I also believe that an answer does lie down this trail.  If I may make a prediction however - I think your program will show a small advantage which will turn out to be roughly 50%, or half, of what you are expecting.  And that the advantage will not be more than 2.7%.

[FLAT_IN_O]

When you are increasing the accuracy of predictions you do not need MM


So contradictory to the strategy explained......as there you don't need any accuracy,
just a hope things turn as you wish.

[Albalaha]

Nothing increases the accuracy of predictions. This statement is a fallacy.

[Razor]

Yes sure ,logic and maths say that whatever we do in the end it will still be a 50-50 chance.
What we are doing here(in forums) is TRYING to find a way to beat this 50-50(or better say the -2,7) and have a little better chance.
Maybe it can not be done...but if we think like that ,then we shouldn t be in a roulette forum and making systems etc. and we shouldn t play roulette with the hope of making money or we should play roulette knowing that we are just playing a game with negative expectation no matter how we play.

I haven t read anything about this  "TwoCatSam style eclipse method ".

MY PERSONAL OPINION is that if with my concept  I will not be able to gain even a little something better than the 50-50,then randomness can t be beaten with imbalance corrections.
Maybe it can be beaten with an other way.

But being in a roulette forum and making research on randomness,then it means that we have/need to be positive...otherwise we don t have any job in a R forum and we stop the research.

PS. All those things that I am saying in my posts and I am about to say in the future are MY opinions and point of views,
Please keep in mind that I am not and I will never will force anyone to accept my point of view...after all we are free men and we are allowed to have our opinion.

[TwoCatSam]

Razor

If I may inject one little bit..........

In my opinion, it's not the -2.7% we need to worry about; it's dispersion.  When did you hear anyone leaving a casino say, "Man, I lost 2.7% tonight!  The wife is going to kill me!"  Nope. 

Let's use a TwoCat Exaggerample:  Suppose you had a wheel that could NOT produce five reds in a row.  Maybe one, two, three or four--we don't know which--but never five.  Hello, Mr. Martingale!!  Now, does the wheel change?  Nope.  Still -2.7%, but dispersion is gone.

Lastly, BVNZ truly is a fair casino with fairly produced numbers.  If the -2.7% is all that standing in the way, why can this casino exist?

Sam

[Razor]

Yes Sam I agree with you on that.
Dispersion is the real killer of almost all systems.
And the only way to avoid it, is a better accuracy on the bets.

By the way I saw one of your video.s
You have a cool accent