I'm glad if you can win with such bet selection but perhaps if you combine it with Albahala's money management you would have an EC grail.
You need money management in order to win long term, have you thought about PGM?

In contrast with the title of this thread I fail to see where is the math.
On all EC bets there are always two possible outcomes, always.
Nothing prevents results to form a streak of 10, or a streak of chops or any other permutation you can imagine at any given time.
Why you cannot (don't want) understand common sense?!

However, it's an improvement in regards with martingales, the baby must learn how to walk on 4 before walks on 2 legs...
Anyway, Baccarat never was my cup of coffee, I've much better edge on Roulette with my methods.

RG, if you think bitter everyone at GF, then you should reconsider.
At GF I've found something I've never found on other forums, freedom of expression and speech!
Perhaps is not so popular yet but I'd rather speak with few good persons rather than many hypocrites!

So what's the point?

Quote from: Aims on December 20, 2016, 02:09:02 PM
Good Day Blue Angel, How's this system holding up?

Currently I'm not using it.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 10, 2017, 08:02:20 PM
Here is a healthy way to look at effectiveness if you want to survive. If you are in a perfect phase of effectiveness, a loss is a signal to get out. If you are in an 80% perfect pattern a loss is only a sign that the pattern is either changing or just being 80%. You must learn how to live with your losses. It's at the heart of everything I'm attempting to teach people. If your life depended on this you would certainly listen. You must become experienced in dealing with changes. It's the only topic worth discussing. I've tried to suggest the ability to remain agile. It's this topic of change that is where being agile is valuable.

Are you claiming that you have coined the term "level of effectiveness"?
Sorry for borrowing your term.

QuoteThere are not good or bad systems. just systems that fit better or worse the specific requirements set by you

This is where you are mistaken, like people, systems are bad and good but this is very vague in my opinion.
By over-generalization it's easy to miss small but very important details which make the whole difference.
There are many, various levels of effectiveness, some work most of the time while others few times, therefore I disagree that all have the same bottom line.
You can find out a result but finding how this result being developed is another thing.

QuoteYou're name isn't by any chance Charles - is it?   

That was a good 1! LOL

Do you remember Boffins bet?

In short e want to catch same and change, thus bet for 2nd hits on high or low and red or black, that's 2 chips, the other 2 chips were on 1st or 3rd dozen and on 2nd or 3rd column.

Would you consider it HG?
A far cry for me.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 01, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
provide the link when you posed your queries.

1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?

2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?

We don't need a crystal ball in order to know that ALWAYS there is unequal distribution on that which supposed to be equal, there is always a dominant side by much or less, even 1 appearance more than the other makes it uneven/unequal.
Since this is a hard fact we should focus on it in order to expose it in the best possible way.
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.
Furthermore, streaks could contribute to somewhat equal totals, for example 5 streak for 1 side and then 5 streak for the other.
Streaks are ideal to identify dominant EC's because their cycle is just 2 spins, for example a sample of 100 spins contains 50 EC cycles, 10 streak could be interpret also as five 2 streaks.
For other bet sections which their cycle is longer clump or cluster theory is more accurate to determine their dominance levels.

Understood, but you've failed to address all of my enquiries...

If  you don't mind I have a few questions.

1. Wouldn't be better to use PGM on Baccarat or Blackjack instead of Roulette EC's ?

2. What's more possible, to find perfect balance within:
a) 2 results 1 VS 1 ?
b) 20 results 10 VS 10 ?
c) 200 results 100 VS 100 ?

3. If f you check large amount of results, like 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 you would find that one of the two sides has more wins than the other combined with 0.
If you knew beforehand which will be ahead you would be always winner even with only flat bets, do you agree so far ?
The more bets and decisions you have experienced the larger becomes this difference between the winning side from its opposite (including 0), therefore progressions make no sense as long as you never know exactly when a win or a loss will occur.
But backing the winning side with flat bets does, the big question is how to know which one ?
The answer is simpler than you might expected, how any of the two opposite sides would get ahead if there were not any streaks ?!
Frequent and/or long streaks create the total difference, thus by following the last decision will eventually place us on the winning side.

Do you agree?
If not, could you explain why?

There is a common element in ALL of your harsh sessions and as long as it exists MY progression will be always victorious, even if you turn all of those sessions upside down in order to reverse the results' order.
No, I'm not talking about the progression which I've shared with all of you.

Baloney comes from balloons filled with hot air, unless you believe a balloon could lift you up from the ground you'd better stay clear from mahoney's baloneys.

Quoteeverything Steve says in his explanation is correct.you guys need to read his post carefully as it must be kept in mind that we only focused on one particular diamond and we are getting a 1 in 5 hit rate and it was not only the fifteen spins that has been mentioned, this pattern repeated over the 100 spins and was consistent.

everyone, Steve is no scammer and has contributed a lot on RR a few years back and helped me a lot.

Ronjo

@ Steve

1) In roulette you don't get paid by finding which diamond the ball will hit.
2) Don't you think 115 spins are just a tiny sample?
How do you expect 1,000,000 spins evidence for a winning method when your proof is just 115 spins?!
3) I don't Ronjo but he admits that you ''helped'' him...
4) You said that the ''free'' version runs through a web server, what if there is a blackout?
What if the server get hacked?
What if the video feedback delayed latency and is choppy?
What if casino staff get you video-streaming the wheel, what excuse your clients should tell, doing it for having casino's memorabilia?
5) What if the dealer spins the ball and the rotor softer and harder for each spin?
6) What if they apply a new rule that no bets allowed after the release of the ball?
7) Regardless of a device's effectiveness, I don't use any, it's just a matter of principle.
By the way, I consider Jafko's ''Pred7'' the best in roulette computers.

I could mention many more issues for you, but these are the basics.

Quote from: Tomla on July 01, 2016, 02:37:07 AM
Hey don't worry about  Albahala. He has a good shot with his new casino affiliation promotion business!!!!!! We might soon see him on online casino ads promoting betvoyager.....everyone has to make a living you know

I thought he was lawyer, at least that's what he told me.

Quote from: TheLaw on June 30, 2016, 07:35:03 PM
I agree with Denzie about Kav and Al, but Steve still seems a bit slippery.

In the 1970s, there were entire corporations set up with full-time employees to clock wheels. The high-level organization was there simply because it was a very lucrative opportunity.......which still exists in some form today.

Steve appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth........one minute, he's selling a new device/system........the next he's saying he doesn't have enough time to handle all of the users of these devices/software.

Not to mention the elephant in the room...........not 1 single member has claimed to use these "devices/software" successfully for profit long-term (or short-term for that matter).

So we are to believe that not 1 member was curious enough to try this out. I'd love to be proven wrong........but this just looks bad.

Testimonials are not an evidence, you could buy as many ''satisfied customers'' as you can.