Mr J´s method "A complete street" has inspired me to this. If we don´t have too many chips, it might be cheaper to work on split instead of single numbers.
Mr J hopes to see a complete street (three numbers) within  the latest 12 spins.
Accordingly I hope to see a complete line (three splits) within  the latest 8 spins.
                                         1-6   = 1-4 & 2-5 & 3-6.
                                         7-12 = 7-10 & 8-11 & 9-12.
                                       13-18 = 13-16 & 14-17 & 15-18.
                                       19-24 = 19-22 & 20-23 & 21-24.
                                       25-30 = 25-28 & 26-29 & 27-30.
                                       31-36 = 31-34 & 32-35 & 33-37.
As far as I can see, it is sufficient to watch the latest SEVEN spins. When exactly two of the three splits from a line are there, I simply bet the missing one.
Without progression.
                                                  Good luck!
                                                     Dane

"VERY, VERY often a complete street hits in a short period of tme (like 12 spins)"
                                            Ken
Such a statement ought to be a challenge for every reader with a basic knowledge of probabilities. I do not have a maths degree; but I am able to play with my cheap electronic calculator with 12 digits. No. 1 might be absent in the first 12 spins: (36/37)^12 = 0.71979582014. By subtracting this result from 1 I find the probability, that this number comes within this 12 spins: 0.28020417986.
The chance that all three numbers in street 1-3 come in that period: 0.28020417986^3 = 0.02200005813.
By subtracting this result from 1 I find the probability, that the street is not complete:      0.97799994187.
There are twelve streets. So the chance that no street comes with all three numbers within 12 spins must be 0.97799994187^12 = 0.76571287166.

A street might not complete  itself in spins 2-13, in spins 3-13 .....One visit might last 105 spins. 105 = 93+12.
0.76571287166^93 = 0.00000000001. My cheap calculator has reached its limit. Are we losing every time within the 105 spin? The probability of 0.00000000001 suggests, that it does not happen "VERY, VERY often"! ACCORDING TO THIS KEN IS RIGHT!   

Quote from: HarryJ on August 26, 2013, 08:21:11 PM
  Hi Dane,
         I like the bet selection, have you tried it with any other progressions??
      Regards       Harry

Thanks! After a loss on level 3 it might be tempting to go to level 1. But I have not had the time to test it yet.
                                                                                Regards
                                                                                  Dane

[smiley]aes/coffee.png[/smiley] Keep an eye on the latest four spins!
3
13
29
20...One chip on DS 1, 3, 5, 4.
20...Hit! That means one step up: TWO chips on each relevant DS, say three DS: 3, 5, 4.
0...Loss. One step down. One chip on two DS: 5 and 4.
13..Loss. There is no step down from here. Say one chip on DS 4 and one chip on DS 3.
3..Loss. One chip on DS 4, one chip on DS 3, and one chip on DS 1.
28..Loss. One chip on DS 3, one chip on DS 1, and one chip on DS 5.
5..Hit! One step up. TWO chips on each relevant DS: Three groups.
                         And so forth and so on.
The session ends after a hit on the 10TH level.
                                                                      Good luck!
                                                                         Dane

 In roulette circles Jean le Rond d´Alembert (1717-1783) is associated with "Progression d´Alembert": One step up after losing and one step down after winning. A few examples: -1-2-3+4+3+2 = 3. And 1+1+1-1-2-3 = -3. The player  from the Age of Enlightenment might be balanced. And Red and Black might be in balance. But this balance is not reflected in the last example! 
"Contre d´Alembert" is contrary to progression d´Alembert. One step up after winning and one step down after losing.  I do not think, that this is worth trying on Even Chances.
I rather try it in a flexible way on the known DS: 1.  1-6
                                                                  2.  7-12
                                                                  3. 13-18
                                                                  4. 19-24
                                                                  5. 25-30
                                                                  6. 31-36.
I bet the groups that came IN THE LATEST FOUR SPINS. The average is jut a little bit more than three groups. Within four sessions I once bet only one group.  63 X two DS, 159 X three BS, and 68 X four DS. In average one session lasted appox. 76 spins.
The session ends when I have won on a DS on LEVEL 10. My first four sessions (from the first four days of 2011, table 3, Spielbank Wiesbaden) resulted in 181+87+27+80 = 375.  375 chips or units.
After a [smiley]aes/coffee.png[/smiley] break I´ll show you how  I start one session

Thanks to Turner! And thanks to Priyanka, who might be unable to think without making a video[smiley]aes/joking.png[/smiley] Quite entertaining! You seem to have understood the system; but you have made s small mistake, I think:
35 (A), 28 (A), 30 (B), 32 (A), 1 (A), 24 (A), 23 (B), 14 (A), 9(A), 21 (A), 30, 4(A), 15(B), 23, 36 (B), 30, 19 (B), 29 (C), 35, 7 (B), 2, (B), 1, 16 (A).
HERE IT COMES: 22. Instead of writing C in the 8TH Group you wrote  C in the 5TH Group, which misled you to bet 34. It would have been fine, if 13 had come instead of 22.
A  little later you started betting 8 (right after 20). It proves that you have understood the idea.

One full session: Beginning with the first spin from table 3, 2011. I have a piece of paper with 12 X 3 squares or spaces  filled with  1-36. When a number comes,  I write  one of the three letters in its square: 36 (A), 26 (A), 28 (A), 20 (A), 25 (B), 8 (A), 22 (A), 14 (A), 18 (A), 36 (I ignore repeats), 33 (A),  10 (A), 29 (B), 32 (B), 30 (C), 3 (A), 28, 34 (B), 9 (B), 14, 8, 15 (B), 1 (B), 21 (B), 31 (C), 4 (A), 34, 32, 13 (C). The full street of 13-15 would look like street 7-9, if only 7 (C) would come! So I start betting 7! Similarly I start betting 19!
12 (B), 8, 0, 8, 20, 12, 17 (B). If only 16 (C) would turn up, street 16-18 would look a bit like the full street of 31-33. So I add 16 to my betting.
24 (B), 24, 13,  19 (C). Hit! The full streets of 13-15 and 19-21 are filled with letters in the same order. This session ends here.
According to my tests most sessions includes betting on two or three numbers. If I were to bet more than three numbers, I´d prefer to stop as mentioned in my initial post here.

The three numbers in a street turn up in some order (repeats are ignored): A is the earliest number, B is the next coming number, and C is the last one. There are only six possibilities:
                                                                        ABC/ACB/BAC/BCA/CAB/CBA
However, there are twelve streets. When one combination comes again, I win (flat betting) and stop. I also end the session, however, instead of betting more than three numbers.
An easy example from the two first streets only:
3 A
1 B
2 C
6 A
4 B
The lowest numbers: 1, 2, 3 are marked with BCA.
A similar pattern may come in street 4-6: I have written  A together with 6 (third column) - and B together with 4 (first column). Now I bet number 5. If I win, I´ll write C in the middle and end the session.
After only 13 sessions (Spielbank Wiesbaden) I have won 107 chips.
                                                                                                                                   Good luck!
                                                                                                                                         Dane

Peter Russell´s World Clock might be worth visiting too!

Quote from: Trizero on August 13, 2013, 10:55:59 AM
No i wrote that "Tanagra" (user on my site and other forum) borrowed the strategy. I didn´t mean / write "she" borrowed" from my site!
But this doesn't matter at all ;-) As it's a just another worthless idea...

Anouncement: The new function "balanceplus" is ready soon!

TRUTH matters.

Trizero: First you told me, that "she" (Tanagra) had borrowed the idea from your site. Then you gave me the credit for the system (roulette-forum.de, Einsteiger Forum, Kurt von Haller, p. 9).  WE KNOW THE TRUTH; and now it is also available in German. Thank you.

Quote from: Bayes on August 12, 2013, 02:06:09 PM

Sam,


No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm using "ignorance" simply to mean that you don't have knowledge of why an event occurs (nothing to do with not being educated in the wider sense, and it's certainly wasn't meant to be derogatory).


So I'm saying that when you say that something is "random", this SHOULD say something about your knowledge (or lack of it), rather than the event itself. It's simply a shorthand way of admitting that you don't know. You don't know which slot the ball will land in, or whether the coin will land heads or tails up, so you say it's "random". On the other hand, some think that this is far too subjective (and it implies that "everything is relative"); they want "randomness" to be an objective thing because it's more "scientific" (but it isn't, it just seems that way until you look at it carefully).


Now you might be impatient with this and say it's just a silly argument about semantics. As you point out, if it's not possible to know all the variables then you might just as well go ahead and call it "random" for all practical purposes. It might seem like philosophical nit-picking, but it does have practical consequences in the field of statistics. There is a very long running and bitter argument between scientists and philosophers about what probability actually means (and this is closely connected to what "random" means). One view (which has been the dominant one in the 20th century, but is now starting to give way to the alternative interpretation) says that probability is just the long-run measurement of frequencies, and leads to statistical techniques which are almost impossible to understand and don't make much sense. Unfortunately this methodology has been forced on students for the last 60-80 years, which is why pretty much everyone hates the subject.

Still, the basic mathematical laws of probability are the same for both views (as mentioned in the Wiki article).

I am sure that you know this: "Everything is relative" did NOT come from Einstein.
As a true "Dylananiac" I quoted something from Desolation Row. I read somewhere that Bob Dylan was inspired by an old cartoon drawing showing Einstein and the Danish Niels Bohr disguised as Robin Hood and the monk.
Many people know Einstein´s statement from a heated discussion with Bohr: "GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE". Bohr answered that we should not interfere with what God might or might not do. At least this is what I have heard.
Maybe the gods or the Laws of Nature do not permit gamblers to grow into Heaven?
Some utopian gurus maintained, that we ought to contact GUF ("Grand Unified Field" in Quantum Machanics) and experience the deepest level through meditation and live in accordance with all the Laws of Nature.  Sooner of later we´ll have enough of such statements and might  prefer an ironic approach. So I once wrote a short story (in Danish) to a local chess magazine. In my story a mad professor had found out, that the Universe is like a chess board. 

"Einstein disguised as Robin Hood with his memories in a trunk
passed this way an hour ago with his friend, a jealous monk"
                                 (Bob Dylan)

HELLO AGAIN TRIZERO;
I have just read on the German forum that you  have given me the credit for "Tanagra´s first repeat".
I did not invent it. We know that!

Hello Trizero: In the ancient Indian language TRI = three! And the Indians might have discovered ZERO too after meditating a long time in accordance with all the laws of Nature and Schrödinger´s cat. But  more seriously: Back to the German words: You are right. I understand German. Many years ago I read several German books on roulette. And I am aware that it is difficult to translate many of the strange words from the German roulette literature and your test site. An example: "Überlagerung" . I don´t know if you are able to explain it in English.