Updated report from 10000 spins from random.org

After 1567 spins the total is +158 units

Bet never exceed 16 units

Max drawdown 161 units

I will upload this excel file when I'm done with it.

Quote from: TheLaw on March 01, 2016, 11:33:43 PM
Hey BA,

Steve weighed in on your system over @ Roulette.cc if you're interested.

If you would like to come over and discuss the method, we would love to have you.

If not, I understand, and thanks for the method-much appreciated!!!

Could you attach a link?

If you put it this way it's not far away from the truth and I don't find it so much 128 units bet for such extreme events, but 5422 units draw-down is quite BIG drawdown.

I've tested with and without money countless methods, mine and from others and if I've learned one thing from such experience is that the 90% of all times a bad method doesn't take too long to show its weakness.
90% of bad methods have been exceed my virtual limit within 1000 results, 5% has failed within 5000 outcomes and 5% have surpassed every expectation, FHG is one of them.

Since this method aims for long term profit I'm going with the probability which means that at some point the deviations will start to decrease towards the average.

It's different to play 50 spins which variance could dominate, if the event's horizon would be short I'd have went with the flow instead of the probability.

98% of the world's gamblers will not play 1,000,000 results during their lifetime, except if science finds the way to make us immortals, not like highlander but without death from natural causes.
As unbelievable it might sound it's NOT impossible, actually it has been rumored that in 15 to 20 years from now such practice will be considered formality due to genetic engineering and nanotechnology!

In this case we could continue our sessions into the millions of results and expanding our records into the infinity!
For the rest 2% of the gamblers' population, who by the way could be undercovered vampires, only 10% of them will encounter such session as Nick's.

Guys, we need to work under PRACTICAL terms, in other words what we CAN expect during our gambling lifetime!
That example could be equally possible as a very large comet crushing on earth, astronomical possibility, what's the point?!

Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 01:41:44 AM
Yeah, I know the rules. Play whatever ec is most far behind.
RNG isn't that bad though. I've been playing with it the last couple of weeks. It gives the same results as a live session. (Only if your going for some dealer signature then it's a no go).

I made a thread simular to your method. But the progression was different. No idea why I stopped playing it. It did won . Anyway I clicked till an ec was around 44% and then I go in. Deepest I saw was 26%. And then it shoots up like a rocket.

Actually I'm waiting for no more than the initial 37 outcomes, at that time I'm betting the least shown EC regardless of the number of times has already appeared.
Then I bet continuously till the end of the session, always following the most unbalanced EC pair.

I've a question for ALL of you, do you think that by applying the same betting schedule but for the most shown EC would generated better results?
If yes, why?

Denzie,
Have you been familiarized with the rules of my method?

I know only 2 RNG for 0.1 and 1 with 0.2 but I wouldn't recommended them.

At Dublinbet casino they have live tables (not studio) starting from 1, my local casinos offer airball roulette from 1 for EC's, so that's the absolute minimum for me (600 BR).

Quote from: Denzie on March 01, 2016, 12:15:35 AM
I've got no problem playing for hours if I'm winning. Anyway I'm gonna test it on small stakes. 0,10 -100 . Make it or break it 

Millions of spins...would be unbelievable if it tanks in my hands. Testing start tomorrow

For 0.1 a bankroll of 60 will be sufficient, it's like building up a pyramid, you begin from the lower levels and gradually you'll reach the top.

A small compounding interest can go a long way.

I'd wish you luck but you won't need it.

Quote from: TheLaw on February 29, 2016, 09:01:09 PM
This actually makes logical sense..........anytime someone writes about a large number of spins, they lose all of the "get-rich-quick" crowd.

From my perspective roulette is not a run of 100 meters (speed) but a marathon (endurance).

You have to take a ''bird's view'' as Bayes had previously mentioned, you should consider as one whole long term session, not small parts of hitting the luck (when you have it) and running away before luck turns against you!

I don't know about you but personally I'm not looking for snatches, I'm looking for rock solid, consistent results!

Quote from: Big EZ on February 29, 2016, 08:33:01 PM


So based on this I have another silly question....


If I/you/anyone use the same bet selection on both roulette even chances and baccarat, for one game I would need to adjust it after 37 spins and the other 50 even though its the same selection process?

And for baccarat does that formula take into account that you are going to be losing units for the banker commission? This progression applied to baccarat could be losing significant units during betting 16units per 50 hand sequence, or am I looking at this the wrong way?

Baccarat is different game from roulette that's why needs different cycle of calculations.

Banker's commision is a disadvantage but it's been compensated by the absence of a ''0''.

Let's say that there was no commission to be paid by banker's winnings but every time there was a tie you would lose your bet, whether that bet was on player's or banker's side, would that being better?

In roulette number 0 is being expected once every 37 outcomes, thus you lose 100% or 50% (le partage) of your bet every 37 results, in baccarat let's say you bet half of the total decisions on banker and from this half you are winning half of them;

So in every 37 hands you would bet 18.5 times for the banker to win, from those you win 9.25 wins and from those wins it's being deducted -2.5% from the total (-5%/2) it leads to 9.25 * 2.5 = -23.12% every 37 hands.
Of course actual results may vary, this is just an average estimation.

I don't prefer blackjack because you have only one option, you have to stick with the player's side while results are going both ways.
If you could choose from time to time to bet on dealer's cards it would be much better, also if you could skip/avoid when betting should be on the dealer and just join when the indication is clear for the player's side it would be good but not as good as having the option to bet both ways because includes a lot of waiting without betting.

What I DON'T like in both baccarat and blackjack are the automatic shuffling machines...

What I think as the best future on roulette is the option to select between 6 EC's any given time.

Craps for pass and don't pass bets has low house edge;
Let's say you bet DP half of the times 37/2 = 18.5 from these you win half 18.5/2=9.25 and 1 from those wins you don't get paid because it's a push on 12 (double 6) so that's happening once every 36 rolls and you don't lose your bet but you don't get paid if it happens during your bet on DP on come out roll.

It's tiny disadvantage for 36 results cycle but what I don't like on craps is that you cannot seat down and a single result could take many rolls, thus more time for the same results!

Time is not a problem for me because I'm satisfying also my need for gambling.

Even if I could win every time in 30 minutes or less, I'd still feel that something is missing.

I get this need filled after a few hours, could be anything between 2 and 8 hours.

Never liked hit and run away like thief!

Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 08:02:43 PM
WTF !!!!! Are you kidding me ? 

Let me clarify what I said, many users have tried to find a worse sequence than the one on the first example of this topic but they didn't find anything worse among LITERALLY millions of results.
All these people just confirmed that there was not worst 200 spins sequence, they were not trying my progression.
Therefore was like an open challenge for anyone who can come out alive after such session from hell.
What I did was to try several progressions and first conclude to another which needed roughly 1000 units and the max bet was about 350 units.
I was not completely satisfied with my findings, mostly because of the huge max bet, thus it hit me suddenly to use a very old and well known progression in a different way, in different scale actually!:-)
That's how the whole concept came into existence and Fallacious Holy Grail was born.

I don't know how much time and how many spins determine a session, for you could be 500 spins, for me 300 and for someone else 100.

So better to speak in terms of results and I'm talking about millions of simulated results, including also the WHOLE archive of Wiesbaden casino.

The law, you got it right, it is grinding, slowly but steadily.

My personal preference is 10 euros unit and aiming from 30 to 60 units per session/day.
With 6000 euros bank can make 300 to 600 (5% to 10%) in approximately 5 hours (BM casino), just a matter of time.

Not too much like 25,50,100 unit value which could draw unnecessary attention, not too low which could not worth the time.

About type of casino, I'm traditional on this one which means that I prefer to have the wheel and the croupier in front of me producing results as I place my chips at the felt.

Quote from: Denzie on February 29, 2016, 05:52:08 PM
Hey Blue_Angel. ...

Impressive your progression. It scares me though.
Did it ever busted ? 600 br ?

I'll post it if ever does.

Quote from: TheLaw on February 29, 2016, 12:23:32 PM
So roughly +1 unit every 10 spins.

Is that consistent with your previous tests?

Thanks! 

I truly believe it's the most consistent in winning but it's not like a fixed interest of terms account.