@Law


       Please try to do this real data with worst "High" EC bet over 1600 spins. If your any progression wins over this data without getting too deep in drawdown, it is really worth focusing upon. I worked upon a variety of Labouchere (including my own versions) and found it promising but only if u have millions of chips.

Nothing of this sort is possible. I saw or have rather used one program of a russian guy with same claims. It was claimed to work upon playtech RNG casinos. The claim was either childish or shrewd. It said that chose  your bet that u want to win and it will kind of intercept the casino server to get you exactly that. Can you believe this? This way, only three spins will make casino go empty.

I often play a multi side attack method on 1-2 numbers. This way, it will be impossible. The table limits should be for every bet not cumulative.

This system has been sold with dozens of names. It is only as good or bad as playing anything else. A bad sequence will make losses irrecoverable.

Ken,
        Even if someone picks  one or two numbers to bet by the best logic, it may still have the same fate as of selecting one/two fixed numbers, in any session. No betselection will give you win in continuous and flat betting. It is mainly about "how much", "when" and "why" than "what" to bet.

Ken,
             If you can bet upto 3 nbrs, I would recommend Finale.
Like you get 21, now u can bet other numbers ending with 1 like 1,11 and 31.
Hey, but in American Roulette, when 0 finale hits you need to bet 4 nbrs. lol


              If you are rigid about only 2 nbrs, I would advise betting two unique nbrs that hit prior to three latest numbers.
For example,
              latest number in right side:
   15,27,32,0,26,26,2,11,2
              Here, latest three unique nbrs are 2, 11 and 26, so we can bet 0 and 32


Betting two numbers can be very rewarding as well as very frustrating.

Randomness does have a virtual limit. It is not possible to get infinite variance. Those who haven't observed the game enough and merely read a few lines like, "every spin is independent of all previous ones" or "a million monkeys can type a work of Shakespeare" or " it is possible to get even 100 reds in a row" are misinformed people and they never bothered to see the randomness' reality.
            Have a look to see the virtual limit of randomness: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-different-bets-of-roulette#.U5RPtHKSxhU

QuoteRandomness has no limits.

     It shows how much you know about randomness and probability. I won't argue with you because it would be like talking to a wall. Enjoy your brilliance.

QuoteAnd yes, every spin is independent.

If every spin is independent of past decisions, why on the earth, since roulette got invented, none has seen 50 consecutive hits of an EC?
Why no 10 consecutive his of a number ever came?
                                        Independence of a single spin does not mean that every spin is free to generate any outcome till infinite. It only means that looking at past outcomes, u can't decide any better bet in one single spin.
        Collective probability of many consecutive spins and probability in one spin, are different.


It seems people enjoy to be mislead.

Xander,
                Either you did not get my question or trying to avoid it.
         two probabilities:  1.Getting 9 reds in a row
                                       2. Getting 18 reds in a row


                If every spin is independent, both should be equally likely. Are they?

My question for Xander,
              Is it as much likely to get 9 more reds in a row after 9 already have hit and a successive hit of 9 reds?

Betvoyager has been a trustworthy casino and except these momentary live games withdrawal troubles, they have paid each and every customer, so far. They do not even ban you if you win daily, only they impose a max withdrawal limit of E2000 a day. Fair enough.

RTM is an absolute truth, otherwise we would have seen 100 blacks in a row, some day. The problem is to define and use the "extreme" of a sample (and it is also difficult to define the sample length which should be used) after which we expect a relatively smoother "regression towards mean" in the second sample.

Of course there are better and worse systems.

If a system is created after understanding the basic nature of game and its harshest probabilities, that will do better than just playing anything.

Can you please clarify the terms and conditions of this bonus, in bold prints here?