The most important thing to always consider is that we will face gambling as any other profitable activity, as a profession that will allow us to increase our revenues, or even make a decent living from it.

To refute the infallibility of the bank we could put thousands of examples where the daily difficulties are well above the 2.7% that roulette imposes on us.

Without going any further direct taxes in many countries  are higher than this rate, however the businesses proliferate, many without incurring evasion. But that's a problem we leave to the treasury.

We won't dispute the existence of a rate against us which will be a difficulty yet not the only nor the most deleterious to beat.

The truth is that no trader who wants to make it successful focuses more on the product that sells less, unless he has relatively accurate information about that product to start revaluing or will start to become fashionable.

Any entrepreneur worth his salt will know that in periods of recession you should spend less at risk of losing all your capital (or spend more taking it very clear the resistance of your finances with the urge to win market share from its competitors contraction).

I mean that an effective entrepreneur has very clear moments of recession and acts accordingly disposing of its capital conservatively or aggressively, but always looking to the ultimate consequences of their precise actions.

I mean, he never spends its entire capital hoping that the recession is over.

It may be that the recession is prolonged and its capital comes to an end, but he will have stood for it up to its truly latest consequences. Ruin would be attributed to the worst circumstances but not due to his actions, at least the entrepreneur would do his best to make it so.

An effective entrepreneur also clearly recognizes the upturns and leverages them while recognizing that he must make reservations for times not so good, which he knows that sooner or later would show. The ant and the grasshopper...

Most players, including systemists, do not behave like entrepreneurs, but rather just the opposite.

To successfully address the rate of 2.7% against try to behave like entrepreneurs, but also use all the specific tools we have at our disposal. Displaying an array of tools that put us in a sufficiently positive position to attack the bank successfully. Such situations are not permanent nor uniform, nor are given 100% of the time we play, but will be enough of times to average balances that allow us to be victorious.

Now we'll roughly see the tools that we will build upon.

In the flat wagering application
(Equal mass, masse EGALE, massa pari)

They are betting that is always the same, uniformly, win or lose, until a positive balance of at least one unit.

As we never forget that we pay a tax on every play we do (especially when we won), we would have to find a situation conducive to bet, with some advantage to be expected within a reasonable period to make up for the famous tax.

Two types of games are based on this theory:

A1) Game of pointers
(Play for the imbalance)

I mean those numbers or those chances that appear more frequently than others. Playing in periods where the imbalance is evident, these games still win bets playing flat. The Law of the Third with all its limitations, which we will see, will be one of our tools.

In this case we refer to the deviations caused by the very nature of chance and not by external factors such as cylinder wear, table defects, etc. They deserve an annex themselves, anticipating from now these tools are difficult to develop because the casinos cater to permanently correct these slippages.

B1) Games of backwardness
(They are based on finding the balance)

We mean to play seeking delays with flat betting, until the number of units earned exceed the invested to achieve this. To develop this game our theoretical foundation will be the Balancing Act or Law of Large Numbers, and also the use of other tools such as the law of distribution of figures, and equations of deviation or Ecart or Scarto, which represent a statistically allowed return to equilibrium when an imbalance occurs.

Both the A1 and the B1 strategy are based on investing time instead of chips, ie require a longer or shorter period in which data are taken without betting.

Since this does not guarantee an expected win in 100% of cases, it's usually unfavorable to the very  impatient players or those with low resistance to frustration, making a wait to lose is not pleasant for anyone.
The truth is that opening a business and not having customers on a given day has the same effect, but is not as visible or makes the merchant leave what he's doing, since he's aware that the days of loss will be offset by the other days of gain.

The upside of these strategies is the relative tranquility with which it's played once an attack begins when the relatively fast and obtainable advantage shows itself to be enough to get the result of the day.

Most often, however, switching between few losses and gains by not having a clearly shown return to equilibrium manifesting markedly. Playing patiently, the advantage comes if we settle for the systematic accumulation of small gains that will take us to capitalize on significant figures in the medium term.

Progressions:

Progressions, like hammers, are tools, and the tools themselves are neither good nor bad. A hammer can be used to chisel the Michelangelo or break any mother's head, or they can be used for any good or ill.

Always within a clear bankroll management strategy, the use of progressions can serve the purpose of limiting the time of recovery phases or amplifying positive cycles.

The limits to a recovery strategy based on progressions are to avoid falling into the childlike simplicity of trusting simply wagering more each time you lose would inexorably produce the recovery of the investment sometime. These systems, ultimately catastrophic, are extremely popular for their alleged logical end: “at some point I have to win and when I win I recover all”, so they say.

What they forget or do not know those who adhere to this logic is that sooner or later the unwelcome situation on which the series of losses is extended to such extent that it leaves the player without a bank, or we reach the table limit, or we could not get there in time to cover the 36 that was the number that recuperated the balance and precisely it’s what shows.

Relying on this is to rely on luck and to place us in the first group mentioned and deserves no further discussion.

Unfortunately playing this way most of the time you win, but as the players don’t put an appropriate and reasonable limit to assume a loss aiming to win in the overall balance, limited series of large losses will be high enough to become unrecoverable with long series of low profits.

Besides, violent progressions (I call violent those in which the stakes are always higher in each ball over the previous spin, but I do not open trial on their goodness or lack of it without putting it in context) produced a nervous state in the average player, which most can not tolerate even playing positive progressions and winning.

There are many progressions or progression-based strategies that bet more when winning more, and bet less or the same when they lose.

Reverse Labouchere, D'Alembert against, Guetting, reverse Beredsford and others. Again we say that a progression is not winning in itself if it’s not properly implemented.

Properly applying means applying a strategy together with bankroll management, according to a given selection criterion matching or giving to the betting progression support; to define it in its growth or decrements to parameters that are in-tune with the objectives.

It’s very easy to see what not to do, rather more difficult to see what must be done in this regard.

We may also combine progressions working jointly on playing opposite chances using only the resulting balances. A clear example of this is the implementation of D'Alembert against a chance and the Dutch to the contrary, giving gain when cycles of imbalance appear and balances close to neutral when balanced periods arise. With modest profit targets proportional to the risked bankroll they can be quite safe and reliable, although tedious in its application.

No progression or progression strategy can change the rate of play since winning the progression we are also paying the proportional tax.

However we will use progressions to try to optimize the results of the hits produced by a phenomenon met between specific bounded limits.

Almost all known systems used apply progression somewhere in which the imbalance is extended against us, then flat betting systems increase the bet by steps, betting at the same level throughout the duration of this step (each step can last same amount of balls -or not-, as  recommended by Marigny such as the ecart may accompany proportionally), aiming to a more and more pronounced imbalance which eventually returns to balance and to recover then when we need fewer winning bets.

If our strategy contemplated entering the game during the phase of a very unbalanced scenario and we are betting on the return of balance, any lost units are indicating that the imbalance worsened, making it more "favorable a priori" for the commitment to balance, then we drive up a notch to our bet.

Marigny recommended to go up a chip in the event of seven chips down when the initial deflection for a simple chance, expressed as isolated appearances or in series of elements, exceeded a 4-Ecart

A final way to apply progressions is using the Parachute.

"Progressions are possible without increasing the bet"

This means that if I seek to win with #36, if I bet the double-street that contains it I’ll also earn in case any of the other five numbers is spun.

Instead of increasing the bet when I lose, I seek to increase the rate of risk and step down from playing double-street to playing a corner containing the number, as long as my bet shows at least one unit of profit in the event of a hit the betting remains the same, then moving to single street, spit and ultimately full straight-up number, always playing a single unit and always looking to make at least a chip.

By varying the amount of numbers followed by this methodology and the speed of evolution and involution of the bet one can get different game variations such as: ABC system, The 220 Goats, The HC3 and Manrique’s pointers system.