I am not going to bash it until I understand it. However I did notice one obvious mistake which is a bit alarming.

[attachimg=1]

Number 20 obviously belongs to column L and not column K. You wouldn't expect such a mistake.

cheers

Thanks for your comments Gizmo, I haven't read it yet. It looks convoluted at first glance.

Hello guys,

Anyone remember Don Colonne and his Roulette DNA theory. Well I didn't know that he has another publication out now called ''Ruin the City of Las Vegas''

In fact just reading the beginning of this e-book, Don states that his first method failed (I imagine that's the DNA of Roulette one) and this is his new work.

It's free and here it is. Thanks Don. Always appreciated when people share their hard work.

http://www.neworiginalthinking.com/EBOOK-RCLV.pdf

Quote from: 3Nine on August 18, 2016, 11:53:54 PM
Ok, you're still not seeing it.

VdW is not needed - at all.

3Nine is right. VDW can't help you right out of the box and it's pretty pointless in reality if you already have the framework in place to win. I suppose what I am saying is that you would pretty much already need to know how to win before you could come up with some convoluted way to use VDW. So what's the point? It's good in a sense however to stretch the old brain a bit.

Hello Vic,

To get the ball rolling and enter into the spirit of things, here is my contribution.

Cheers

Quote from: james on August 18, 2016, 01:23:14 AM
Is there any selection that is most suitable for "The Boxer"?

I would say finding a selection for Baccarat might work best because of it's streaky nature at times. The thing with streaks though is that you may have to go looking/manufacture them with your own ideas to get a steady supply of opportunities.

Just as an example, I like to work out my Baccarat bets by taking 4 decisions at a time and then looking for different types of streaks grouping them into pairs.

[attachimg=1]

So the 4 decisions in chronological order are P, B, B, P. But you can have up to 6 different pairs to try and spot different types of streaks.

cheers

It's a good question and funny that it came up because I have given this a lot of thought recently.

I think you need a combination of both bet selection and MM. Both of which may go through different phases during your session. Gizmo has really hit the nail on the head with the three states. 1) Working. 2) Holding it's own. 3) Not working. You can use this for both bet selection and MM. I also find it works best over short games. Not necessarily because I believe in hit and run, but because I think you reach a certain point in the spin count where you can have too much information if you are looking at a lot of different stuff and why make things more complicated for yourself.

That's right Tomla. It's more aggressive and less forgiving than the Mongoose....but if you have something which can be very streaky, then using this can be good as well.

Here is a page from the Wizard of Odds with the payout table.

https://wizardofodds.com/games/double-ball-roulette/

Go to the spin at 10 minutes 10 seconds where both balls land in the green zero. That can win you a payout of 1,300/1. A lot of information about the game in the text below the video.

cheers

An interesting new concept played at ''Mr Green'' Live Casino.

https://youtu.be/bSWVGx6BwZM

A short example using BLACK and RED.

The GREEN signals the end of a winning game. The RED signals the end of a losing game.

[attachimg=1]

Played another 4 games using the same spin set.

[attachimg=1]



And just out of interest I decided to mark in RED where the ''same'' bet would have lost an AP coup over the 10 games.

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

So 10 losing ''SAME'' AP bets as opposed to only 3 losing ''DIFF'' bets.

Playing ''DIFF'' over 10 games was a 220 chip outlay for a return of 288....so +66.

Playing ''SAME'' over the 10 games was a 192 chip outlay for a return of 72....so -120.

Here are the first 6 games.....

[attachimg=1]

Only play for the ''diff''

The only slight difference is that I am playing 20 numbers or 10 splits. It more or less explains itself. You write down the number and what dozen/column combo it belongs to. You get to the missing dozen and column and then it's either ''same'' or ''diff'' depending on what appears next.

So in the first game...

29 3B
01 1A  so the ''missing'' OR furthest back dozen/column combo is 2C.

Next number out is....

03 1C  so 2B is now missing and because one of the missing changed, (the C changed to B) it's marked as ''diff''.

There were 7 bets in the above 6 games. 5 W vs 2 L. (One game did not qualify because of the ''same'' winning on an AP of 234)

Just my twist on it.

I have read some of Priyanka's work over the last few weeks regarding the VDW/AP bet and was also interested enough in the stats for the dozens/columns to have a play around with things. So well I am around, I am happy to show you guys what I was working on. I did find something that does ok a lot of the time.

It revolves looking for an AP in the dozens/columns. I will grab some numbers from today at Wiesbaden and show an example.