Hi mate,
Except that your second vert.column should look like this;


numb.      street


10               4
13               5
35              12
30              10...............and so on.It is much easier to follow.


Regarding the method it self/you show 2 versions/could be played in many diff.ways--LvF 6--
but never standard D'Alembert,spin after spin,in continuation as it may come to Oklahoma where
tornados are waiting to wipe you out.

And have you tried LvF 3 lines...betting all 6 D'Alembert,in cycle of 6 spins.
And after 6 cyclesx 6=36 spins if result be 3-3 or 4-2 you should be on top.
This is not same as LvF 9 splits.....as here you have 2 diff.bets going consequently.
Once you reach the decent plus,switch to another method,before tornado arrives,
as it always do if you on the same road.

Splits cycling.......but there are about 24 different bets involved,including PCWB,ABC wheel sorted,
and many others.....it's just matter of timing while on the table,and having all in the head while
watching last 18 numbers on display board.

Quote from: marvin on May 22, 2013, 05:01:09 PM
  at first, i really thought GreatGrampa == FLAT_IN_O 

--Jesus Christ,Marv,

Compering my English to his,it's obvious who is who.
Except that we think similar as far as roulette is concerned.

Quote from: GreatGrampa on May 22, 2013, 04:07:36 PM

Flat you are a star . You closed one more missing link in my puzzle. There is truth when the ancestors said, knowledge is the only stuff which can multiply by sharing.



--I simply mentioned it cause when I play in casino,usually play/mix about 5 diff.methods,
  including columns and dozens.

--In my country they say;Donkey + man,know more then man alone.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 21, 2013, 02:18:13 PM
FLATman

Real tables are a long way from me.  Don't know that I like them anyway.  It's so peaceful here in the TwoCat Casino. 

Sam

--As long as you are your own pit boss...you can't lose then.Let her put the bets and you collect....lol

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 21, 2013, 12:18:16 AM
Going to 16 steps with the D'Alembert is do-able.

I have systems that go to 22 and recover.  One must toss in 200 Euro and go to bed.  Yes, you lose it sometimes.  There is no "Holy Grail".

The hell is when you get to a high number and BV cuts you off.  Now that will sink your flotilla.

TwoCat

It wouldn't be purposely or.......There is,but on real table,Sam.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 20, 2013, 03:35:26 PM
Ahem!

No need to FLATter FLAT.  His ego is larger than the country he lives in now!!

(That was TwoCat humor, FLATman.  Don't come after me like an Oklahoma tornado!!)

But, call it as you wish, just remember who coined it.

GreatGrandpa

Thanks for posting the DNHG.

Sam

--Not really Sam,as am busy with my guests now...but will say few words that most of you guys
  skip and avoid totally........LEVELING CYCLE PROGRESSION.......which I explained couple of
  times,and only one guy ask for further explanation.It seem as difficult this kind of progression
but actually it is very easy and effective in real play.Long live summer.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 19, 2013, 05:28:05 PM
Go into a casino, divided you BR into 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,516.
Arrived at a table and play bet on RED immediately till u win...DO YOU think the BLACK will show up in the next 10 spins??? 10 BLACK in a row   , probability is 1/1024 and less..[pesky 0 factor]. And then u move to another table and repeat the same bet on RED.  Will u think 10 BLACK will show up, and then go to 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,7th,8th,10th.table.& then get out...DO U THINK THE 10 BLACK IN A ROW WILL SHOW UP THAT DAY, WHEN U PLACE THE ONLY GAME BET ON A PARTICULAR TABLE???....Hope u understand what HAR mean by now ...BTW I think this is the best way to bet 10 steps MARTY....HAR.!!! 10 BLACK in a row will be only encountered when u stay long enough ,or really UNLUCKY!!!

--No many casinos around with 10 tables playing at the same time....as a matter of fact such
casinos don't exist/and believe me I have seen em a lot/not even in Macao.......516 un x 10=
5160 euros.......once it gets you will never recover after that.And that would mean you was
unlucky.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 16, 2013, 05:39:10 AM
Tennis:


E Gulbis v R Nadal


R Nadal is set to win
Do Set betting
R Nadal: 2-0


Time: 14:25

Maybe opposite------0-2

Quote from: Albalaha on May 15, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
Do you believe Chelsea will win for sure?

If it is refered to me,I tip the X,not win of Chelsea.

--What did I tell you about young Poland Yanowitz the other day......He smash of the court
favorised Tsonga at Rome today.I did bet on him in the system 3/12 at odds of 13/4


And tonight Benfica-Chelsea x

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 13, 2013, 02:05:26 AM
This will allow me to travel where no one else can.

"To go where no man has gone before.".................Star Trek


I'd advise to beware of Klingons.  And the Borg.  Don't forget:  Resistance is futile!

--Good voyage Sir.....don't forget taking the bots with you.....maybe there is fair RNG.
 

Seriously, now.  Do you believe in the old magnet theory?



Sam



Sam old boy,
Even thought the question is reffered to Norm,I will unswer it instead.
Yes they are using the old magnet theory,but in more sophisticated way these days.
Recently in Malta we detected such table,and earlier on my trips around EU,in many
smaller /unreputable/casinos have come across same,especially,Bulg.Rum.ex Yugo countries,
Hung.Pol.Che.Slo.Slov.and even some in Fran./Corsica/...corrupted..they all get paid.

Quote from: GreatGrampa on May 10, 2013, 11:06:42 PM
Great flat. A couple of lines of explanation would be much appreciated.

--By statistics/Bayes/7,8,and 9th. spins are the most repeat spins of them all....correct???

  First spin of first 6 virtual,will be trigger for next 3 spins/7,8,and 9th. spins/

After finish betting/7,8,9/our next trigger would be again first spin of last 6 spins....

And so on in cycles of 3 spins/as 7,8,and 9th.spins/always looking back 6 spins for new trigger.

Five x 3 spins is our betting cycle......1 up on loss,1 down on a win....very simple,I think....and

Bayes may be right with his statistics.