If I do this then I'm going to start out with $25 chips.

Now consider this. You can play ten separate sessions simultaneously. If you have ten different pattern/spin number combinations then you can play all ten sessions at the same visit to the casino. At least I can.

Quote from: subby on November 15, 2012, 05:25:26 PM
Your method will let random hit you roughly once every 8 attempts if you have just less than a 50% chance each time...times 3 (for the line) = random can get you.

The exact moment is a factor also. It's a one in thirty chance. It should be added to the one in eight odds.

 Now I wonder if it avoids the loses as much as Pattern  Breaker does?

Once you have randomly selected one of the eight possible patterns you can move on to randomly selecting the exact moment when to commit to the bets.

It takes from 30 to 60 spins to discover the last pattern standing. So all you really need is a random spin between one and thirty.

You should be able to walk into a casino with one of the eight patterns written on an index card. You should be able to bet against it hitting on an exact random number of spins, for example, you might have written down 17.

Now this should be the exact same mathematical probability as the full duration Pattern Breaker. It just makes it faster to get to a decision point.

That being said, you can get more sessions in on each visit to a casino.

So if I understand these things, You start the session some time after walking into the casino. That means your sequence, using Pattern Breaker, is completely different for you than the sequence for someone else starting one hour later. So when you start is a factor of the difficulty in hitting the moving target.

In Pattern Breaker the point is to avoid back to back loses, and to have a win ratio greater than 7/1.

So in Pattern Breaker you wait for a last pattern standing. You then bet it won't strike at the very next three spins.

The only bad part left of all this is the waiting. I'm suggesting that all the waiting is unnecessary. You should be able to select one of the patterns randomly

  This forum is the last stand for those really researching weaknesses in the game of roulette. 

Victor, I've never tried to build a randomness game based on correction & balance before.

It's as good a reason to use as characteristics of randomness.

If you use a technique that attempts to follow all corrections after imbalances are detected then you are bound to expose the three conditions for effectiveness.

You might be able to exploit the conditions where imbalance is occurring too. It's a fascinating concept.

Discussing how and when to attack in that technique would be useful.

It might be exactly the same as in my use of trends for bet selections.

One thing that is key for me is that when the conditions are consistently bad, as far as a bet selection goes, I opt to salvage what's left of the streak by attacking the opposite.

Take any bet selection technique that has a basic fixed set of rules. That includes as wide a set of rules as following the strongest trends to follow the last decision.

Any quality executed method should bring at it's simplest, results that fit into three basic conditions. One condition is that the bet selection is doing very well. Another condition is that the bet selection is doing very poorly. That leaves the third condition that it is flat without positive or negative results.

It doesn't matter what technique is used as long as it produces these kinds of results as streaks of the three conditions. I have no problem in illustrating examples of bet selection that show these conditions. It's not hard for experienced players to imagine scenarios that fit this type of results.

But that's not the point of this thread. This is a topic discussing exactly what to do with these conditions. Where are the system builders for that? I recommend a two level betting technique that coincides with these conditions. Maybe there is a better way to approach this. Perhaps there is a way of combining an increased flat betting method based on session to session play? What works best?

I've spent at least 15 years focusing on 180 degree & 90 degree shifts at
1, 2, & 3 steps away from the last spin.

The characteristics found in common randomness hold to their basic nature even though specific focus is applied to these areas of interest.

Things like sleepers, singles, doubles, and higher & lower degrees in the qualities of patterns occur with the same expectancy as when focusing on everything else.

This idea that knowing when to expect a trend is, at most, wishful thinking with regards to a study of large number theory.

You can't play a real session of large numbers.

You will be taken out by variance before you reach any significant value of large numbers of spins.

Anyway, flat betting is a ridiculous way to tackle randomness.  ...just my opinion