Dear MG,
              Graphs look good but doesn't tell story of how do u get them. Either elaborate the method or put a link to the method or if it is nowhere on the net please tell us the resource from where we can get that like name of the book, publisher etc.

Bayes,
    I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?

QuoteI think you missed the point I was trying to make about a long term winning system. Repeaters and hot numbers is the key.

Exactly,
            You can look for an anti-variance bet this way. Not 100% but mostly.

If we say play an EC with three step marty (1-2-4) after LLLL, will we get any edge? I have tested this and found it makes an interesting race with wins and losses but in no way, gives an edge for long term. What do u say Bayes?

Quote"Random has limits, math beats a math game".

Bayes, I consider u the most mature person on various forums I know of. If there is a limit, what is that? I have a query for you in  your maths section too regarding saliu.

I agree 100% with spike. All numbers are same and these so called "group" of bets like Red/black, dozens/columns etc. upon table is made to fool us. If someone looks for a pattern in ECs, it is like trying to mislead oneself.
                        But there is another side of the coin too, which can not be overlooked. ECs or any group of numbers are  random betselections. Over a long term, every number evens out almost if the wheel doesn't have a bias. So these "pseudo groups" do balance themselves too.
                   Every betselection has proportionate advantage and disadvantage attached to it. A single number may sleep even for 500 spins (due to temporary variance, not due to any bias) but can "Red" or any other EC behave similarly? If a number can sleep easily for upto 500 spins an EC can also not appear 13 times, in a row. There is absolutely no limit to it.
         Again I ask same thing, if PB or martingale are bad ones, which one is better practically, mathematically and universally?
If someone can answer this, may be JL will stop playing PB forever.

Ralph,
          that applies to all bets but waiting for a single number to clump can be as disastrous as #3 of zumma. May be playable with bot only.

In clear figures, showing max and min level and net win.

MG,
    You could neither provide the method clearly nor did u provide result in an appropriate manner. Could you please clarify what u actually played and what were the results?

Yeah, even English is written and pronounced differently at different places.
UK: colour
USA:color
             If we talk of UK English standards, even George Bush could not speak correct English.


George Bush Speech Mistakes

I felt it on a trip. It was a small casino where I was playing daily. In 4 days, I earned about 20 times of what I started with. They used to note down all withdrawals with name. I was the only guy making 4-5 withdrawals daily. Obviously, I was noticed. I didn't win too much but they got annoyed. One day the manager pointed me and my friend to the casino owner, "these are the two guys". Manager approached me personally once and said, why do u play so long, u should move around this beautiful city. Nothing bad happened thereafter but I switched casino.
            If u can win regularly, play in very big casinos only.

One number is statistically the worst, to play. It can offer you the worst odds possible and the biggest variance too along with lowest expectancy to "appear and clump". Not a very practical idea in a real casino.

Every money management/progression/regression/stop loss/flat bet/trigger bet/bet per spin work for gain in proportion to what it can lose.
No money management is better than other, principally. You may encounter a very good session with one MM while it may not be so good for other set of MM.
          In a nutshell, if u want to earn something in gambling without risking too much and believe that u won't suffer from the worst probabilities in  your session, "mild negative progression" is the only remedy. Again, if u get the worst in  your session, u won't win with it because "mild progression only works upon a session with "mild variance". Every thing is proportional and house edge further creates a pit for you, to cross along.

JL,
         

QuoteI have a double dozen method where I know I will virtually always win 4 out of every 8 bets I place. Now mathematically flat betting that's knowledge has no edge and will lose me money. But using a progression until a profit is secured.

Your so-called "method" can not put the small ball in your desired pockets, when u bet upon them. Do not make claims that are faulty in itself or based upon "fallacies" only.
             What kind of double dozen bet u have that "virtually always" hit 4 times out of 8 attempts? Do you do some voodoo on those numbers to ensure this? "virtually" and "always" do not hold together.

JL,
       What is smart MM, as per you?