-----------------------------------------
W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  01  --  11 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  02  --  13 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  03  --  14 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  04  --  28 ( $ -36 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  05  --  15 ( $ -54 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  06  --  33 ( $ -72 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  07  --  34 ( $ -54 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  08  --  12 ( $ -36 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  09  --  08 ( $ -54 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  10  --  02 ( $ -72 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  11  --  18 ( $ -54 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12  --  11 ( $ -72 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  13  --  15 ( $ -90 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  14  --  36 ( $ -72 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  15  --  25 ( $ -54 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  16  --  30 ( $ -36 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17  --  06 ( $ -54 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  18  --  21 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  19  --  03 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  20  --  10 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  21  --  18 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  22  --  30 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  23  --  36 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  24  --  23 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  25  --  22 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  26  --  12 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  27  --  33 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  28  --  26 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  29  --  02 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  30  --  33 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  31  --  27 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  32  --  09 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  33  --  10 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  34  --  27 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  35  --  03 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  36  --  16 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  37  --  28 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  38  --  14 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  39  --  02 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  40  --  35 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  41  --  06 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  42  --  05 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  43  --  07 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  44  --  02 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  45  --  25 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  46  --  20 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  47  --  30 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  48  --  15 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  49  --  17 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  50  --  29 ( $ -36 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  51  --  17 ( $ -54 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  52  --  10 ( $ -72 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  53  --  34 ( $ -54 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  54  --  21 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  55  --  30 ( $ -18 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  56  --  37 ( $ -36 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  57  --  13 ( $ -54 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  58  --  12 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  59  --  18 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  60  --  18 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  61  --  29 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  62  --  30 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  63  --  13 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  64  --  22 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  65  --  01 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  66  --  08 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  67  --  19 ( $ -18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  68  --  24 ( $ -36 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  69  --  36 ( $ -18 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  70  --  07 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  71  --  16 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  72  --  21 ( $ 36 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  73  --  03 ( $ 54 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  74  --  01 ( $ 72 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  75  --  04 ( $ 54 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  76  --  29 ( $ 36 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  77  --  37 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  78  --  32 ( $ 36 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  79  --  03 ( $ 54 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  80  --  14 ( $ 72 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  81  --  37 ( $ 54 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  82  --  12 ( $ 72 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  83  --  36 ( $ 90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  84  --  08 ( $ 72 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  85  --  12 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  86  --  05 ( $ 108 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  87  --  28 ( $ 90 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  88  --  28 ( $ 72 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  89  --  02 ( $ 54 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  90  --  37 ( $ 36 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  91  --  12 ( $ 54 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  92  --  15 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  93  --  35 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  94  --  28 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  95  --  21 ( $ 18 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  96  --  20 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  97  --  07 ( $ 18 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  98  --  16 ( $ 36 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  99  --  04 ( $ 18 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  100  --  37 ( $ 0 ) Red

So what skills are needed to read randomness?


The first skill is to get over the absurdity of the phrase itself. It is argued and believed that because randomness is random it can't be read. And people are debating causes for trends and patterns with arguments reaching into the fantasy that you can't see trends or patterns because they don't exist. I will demonstrate how to make a chart and read it for Roulette. When I see 35 spins of the same dozen go to sleep and not hit all in a row, and then I go on to name the sequence of spins an "Elegant Pattern," then I get the crazies coming out of the woodwork. It infuriates those that can't see what is clearly in front of their faces. It makes them mean spirited, condescending, and judgmental. Those are self inflicted wounds. I like to egg them on just to keep them fueling their hatred. Nothing is too good for our math snobs.


Now I have just begun using these methods in Craps. You have one data set from two sets of a single grouping. You can bet for it to pass or not pass. You can load up on placed bets while at the same time riding the waves of the Field bets. Your only adversaries or allies being the seven on the come out roll and the following stretch before a seven appears again. It's a soft form of only tracking the Reds/ Blacks in Roulette.


So here is a chart of spins using a blind bet of red only bets. It breaks even while still hitting the greens five times. Everything you can see in this chart that is useful will fit on lined index cards. These cards can be used to play or practice using real live spins.

Thanks, I will stay around long enough to explain everything. Then those that know this will carry the water for it. You know a lot of it already. Your experience is monumental. Our Asian friend was right. You need to place bets that are at least 20 times larger than the base bet at times that make the most sense. I just can't figure out why he would struggle with that. All I have is using a strategy that reveals opportunities. It reveals all downward spirals before they can do extensive damage. And it's simple. That alone would protect the attacking bets.


Mark

So, moving on. In the video you will learn the secrets to a winning strategy with key points made starting at minute 5:50 thru 7:00 and on to 8:20.

Fear. He says that most uninformed traders, the great 90% of the unwashed that is, are making investments with scared money. Now this topic has been discussed on gambling forums for decades. But nobody has put together all the little things that make up a kind of rules to win by if you bet on trends. A set of method recommendations can be programmed and simulated for testing if someone wants to put that much work into it. They do that much work in the stock market. And they charge up the wing-wang to gain access to it too.

He states that most people sell lower than they should when they are winning and hang on to a losing stock well past a logical point while it keeps descending. Gamblers do the same things because they don't have a plan.

Anyone can create telemetry on spin results that shows trends. I do it on index cards while playing live at a casino. I can see the ranges. I cans see the swarms of single characteristics. I can see "domination" where at least one next continuation is producing one win after a grouping changes sets. A grouping would be the 18 black combined with the 18 red. Each 18 numbers are sets of the main grouping. By watching these sets I can see patterns that tend to repeat. Sometimes it is that the trend is that when black hits, it only hits once before going back to more reds. And when reds hit they always hit as two or more hits. That kind of a bigger picture trend is good enough to win one time. There is no guarantee that it will win. There is no prediction that it will win. It only takes one bet to see if it will win, thus confirming that the trend is still continuing or not.

To some that simple method or logic is not valid. All it is is guessing. You might as well just place a guess without tracking past results. But if you just select bets (investments) randomly you won't have a bet selection process that can target 10 reds in a row. We all know that they occur. The random selection process will miss that opportunity. Now a random selection method will produce 10 wins in a row. It must. But you  won't have an identifier that a swarm of the same characteristic is occurring. That is why it is a good idea to have a bet selection method that identifies conditions. It won't change the odds and it won't guarantee that the big investment will win on the next spin. But it will provide you with a consistent method for bet selections. With that in mind you can use the data gathered by a simulation. And from that you can see the actual effectiveness of the conditions. That effectiveness is real. It is not a figure formation in a chart. It could be a figure formation like a trading chart in the stock market.


Example:

Wasn't that great. The guy just opened my eyes. I was almost there but he took me the rest of the way.


So, as I said, I took this trading method of seeking ranges that are historically working at the time and doing what traders do, if they are smart like this guy that is.


So just about everyone here knows that I used three net wins and out to make a single session worth while for me. I even tried some of John Patrick's "2, 1, 2" positive progressions to make it more interesting. This guy uses flat betting and beating the ranges by entering a trade early as it recovers and before it goes into resistance. He stays inside the already performing waves that are spelled out as ranges. He knows that there is no prediction. He expects to lose as much as 50% of the time. But he also gives himself an edge that comes form the performance of the moving averages. They are trends. The trends that he seeks tend to repeat in a pattern for him. Roulette does that too if you are trained to see characteristics and their moving averages also. You will lose 50% of the time too. But you will also have an edge because you will have win streaks that pay off at least twice as much as each lost attempt. When you do have some of the losses it will be at times when it costs you nothing.


This is possible because on a Roulette table you can use no-valued virtual bets that keep you in the bet selection process but have no impact as a cause for a declining bankroll. You must ride out the temporary downward trends by selling stocks in time. But you can keep charting the waves without succumbing to the results of continuous flat betting in Roulette. Getting out early in the stock market is the same as switching to a virtual bet. You wait for the next trend in both cases.


So the skill is having a playing plan and also having a knowledgeable skill at exploiting trends and patterns.

So, I've had just about all I can take from these math wizards. It's time to teach everyone and to let the chips fall where they may in the world.


This is the home of all my secrets. It's always been at the betselection.cc forum. So this is where I will tell all. If a person wants to ridicule and insult anyone in this thread I will delete their posts. No apologizes. Keep it civil or I will remove the comment. You can be as PC incorrect as you can get away with. I don't care. But personal attacks with exceptions to posturing ones own intelligence versus any others will be squashed.


Everyone knows that I changed tactics 4 months ago or so. I have suggested many variations on the same theme. I opened my school to explore these things. I spent a lot of time watching others perfect a skill. That skill is trend and pattern recognition and MM tactics that fit it. Two weeks ago I discovered, at the suggestion of another, this video that explains an MM tactic based on ranges formed by moving trends in the stock market:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRCtBRsLPmk&feature=youtu.be  ; 17 minutes


From that I formed a method to flip the concept and play Roulette like a professional stock player. The video caused me to step back and see an even bigger picture. I'm going to spell out that picture in detail. No hints anymore. This is how anyone can beat all the table games at the casino if they are based on chance.


I suggest to you that you watch the video so that you can know what I'm talking about. He explains why 90% of stock traders lose money. And that also explains why 99% of gamblers lose as well. The so called house advantage applies to any single bet but does not explain the earnings from gamblers in their corporate bottom line's. This video perpetuates that lie and just accepts it as fact. It is one of the greatest lies in history. All it is is an excuse to lose for those without a plan. People expect to lose so they go ahead and lose. They walk in the door expecting to lose. It's a wonderful scam.


The author of the video explains that the house expects to make 5.4% off of Roulette. But the corporate earnings yearly reports shows that most casinos make a whopping 14% or more each year from Roulette. Why the discrepancy? Haven't they heard of the absolute probability of the mathematics community? They don't care that people pay them more than they should I guess. Funny that...


I will teach everyone how to see favorable conditions. It's the same thing as the professional stock trader.


Let me know if you have seen the video and have questions.

Quote from: TheMagician on October 19, 2018, 01:24:03 PM
BTW,

Ignorance does not excuse error, and error is inevitable from any supposition risen from the absence of immutable facts. Roulette is game surrounded by such facts and cannot be pushed aside either by emotion or notion.

You are the only reason I responded to this thread. When you said that I had to say something if nobody else did.


What immutable facts?" You got facts on the nature of randomness, variance, and with regards to trends and patterns? I don't think so. All you have is accusations of prediction where none is claimed. And don't give me that Zen at the mountaintop crud either. You are not enlightened enough to share any "immutable facts." Why don't you suppose something that includes facts about trends and patterns. You have made yourself out to be a target of your own axiom. Do you get that?

Yes, that was rewarding knowing that I'm in your head again. You know that phrase? I'm living there rent free.

Quote from: TheMagician on October 21, 2018, 03:08:12 PM

I see you are talking with yourself again. I can understand if your self-confessed schizophrenia would force you to do that in front of a mirror at home, but here in public? C�mon... Guess it must be in its late stages before the guys in white come knocking on that door of yours.

I remember when you applied to become a test pilot in my forum some years ago. It didn't take much to see you were basically a basket case with no visible skills warranting a participation in said forum. The ones that have been there for years now have made it quite well from what was offered based on pure math and physics.

You on the other hand, and I am referring back to some old posts of yours here  (I could bring them out to you in case u suffer from temporary amnesia), have been suffering from bouts of desperation, suicidal thoughts and some other more serious mano-depressive states of sheer mental degradation that shouldn't be mentioned here.

You are gravely mistaken if I attack such mental disorders. What I do approach in your case with what you may have experienced as personal attacks, is your well documented dishonesty, where the amounts of accusations of fraud and mere confidence crimes against individuals on this forum and others ones too are sufficient to conclude that you are a simple con man, and from what I have witnessed myself, intelligent to a certain degree, allowing you to present a reasoning sufficient enough to con your objects of choice as long as they do not turn your ignorance against you and laugh straight in your face, in which case you play the indignation card, which of course all con artists do as a last defense.

Any further facts about you are merely superfluous as the currently available facts are archived for all to see should they do some research on you and realize there are more than enough revealing your pathological inclination to lie and con people.  I suspect this ability and mental weakness has been with you since childhood. The reason probably to be established by a professional psychiatrist and not me or any other member here.

Didn't even finish reading this. Have a football game on. I see you are not attacking me again. Wonderful how that equates.

Quote from: TheMagician on October 21, 2018, 08:23:57 AM
Ah, so.  The walking con-job is back once it was clear the forum changed owners again.

https://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/foxtrot-alpha-5-makes-261-units-in-49-bets/msg53864/#msg53864


Pot Kettle Black.


You are not qualified to dismiss coincidence caused patterns and trends. That is self confessed too. Knowing that you would ignore a sleeping dozen that sleeps for 30 spins in a row makes me happy.


You have a huge attitude problem with anyone that disagrees with you. Yep, it's a trend. You are so angry that you can't hide it. You need people to target. You need the forum. You can't make an argument without making a personal attack. I believe you think that tolerance is only something that you claim is a positive trait that you have while completely keeping it as useless to only people superior like yourself. You can't tolerate me and so you must attempt to ridicule me. Still not answering how probability negates trends and patterns. Why can't you and the other mathNazies out there ever deal with this question? It is you that depends on prediction. It is you that can't or won't see patterns and trends. You are the blind one. Since you can't see them there is know way that you can know if they work at times or not. You can't deal with not having a mathematical or physical edge. So you spew your unsubstantiated dogma as if you are pontificating Newton. All you have succeeded in doing is pointing out your hate. I'm glad you are miserable. You are stuck with it. Keep up the good trend.


Any more conversation with you is like being caught in your flypaper trap. You are condescending, egotistical, and basically poison to normal discussion. If you are so smart then why are you also so blind to your own imperfections? The angry member. The math expert of all things randomness. You don't fit well. It comes off as anti-social. And the most blinding of all, why are you here? Are you a spandex boy come to save the unwashed? We have been tolerating the mathBoyz for decades. We can tolerate you too.

Quote from: TheMagician on October 20, 2018, 08:39:03 AM
You see patterns where in reality there are none. And you additionally believe these patterns on the LAYOUT (table), are predicting a certain outcome. They do not.

What is on the layout, is a set of numbers that however you group them will offer the same probability of hitting depending on your BET SELECTION.

A certain layout pattern, be it a collection of straight ups seen as a street, dozen or column is no assurance for a correct future outcome. The probability is the same on any given spin.

It must be a real challenge to attempt to appear erudite while just stating the obvious. That's a real gift you have.


Let's break it down so that it is no longer magic. "You see patterns where in reality there are none."


It's magical thinking to think that is true. There are patterns and they have unique characteristics beyond the suspension of disbelief. They have beginnings, duration, quality towards perfection, and ending types. And most important of all, probability can't forecast or predict when they will occur.


"And you additionally believe these patterns on the LAYOUT (table), are predicting a certain outcome."


Not true again, more magical thinking perhaps. You don't need to have magical skills of prediction to place a bet on a pattern or trend. And you don't need a "red herring" to make yourself out to be a good point maker. It's just a straw man argument that serves to elevate yourself and has nothing to do with using patterns or trends the right way, that way that you are apparently oblivious to. Try thinking how a person would use a pattern and then make your dogmatic statements.


"What is on the layout, is a set of numbers that however you group them will offer the same probability of hitting depending on your BET SELECTION."


Having the same probability does not make trends and patterns automatically ineffective. There are two outcomes. it works or it does not work. Since the original premise is that a trend or a pattern is the result of coincidence and not some magic elf wondering around putting spells on wheels, or a magic mathBoyz trying to impress everyone, I would not be so righteous with indignation towards others that can clearly see you have blind spots.


"A certain layout pattern, be it a collection of straight ups seen as a street, dozen or column is no assurance for a correct future outcome. The probability is the same on any given spin."


There you go again. Probability allows for patterns and trends to work effectively at times. Probability can't prevent a coincidence from occurring. Probability can't predict when a coincidence will be effective or not. Only a fool feeds a trend that is not working. You look like you want all trend users to be fools. You look like you count on it to elevate yourself. It's cheap theatrics you know. You are stating the obvious and celebrating your achievements by it. Only you have accomplished nothing.


Somebody needed to say it.


It is a coincidence that a pattern appears. They are only seen by those that have set out to discover them. When it happens it has an eventual ending. It occurred while probability remained a constant. It occurred without any capacity for having the power of prediction. It happened irregardless of the opinions of weak minded math snobs. It happened anyway while the blind continues to lead the blind. And that is a trend too.


It does not matter that 20 reds in a row happened. The odds for each spin were a constant the entire way. A ranting maniac spewing math equations on a soapbox would have no effect on the coincidence. Course, this is not that case. His outbursts would only be a typical announce regarded as part and parcel of dealing with different personalities on a gambling forum. The trend happened. The pattern was perfect. At no time was the event predictable.


Now go find a way to argue your point with effectiveness. All you are doing is asking people to be impressed by stating the obvious.

So, after some considerable figuring, I'm moving back to 24 numbers from 18 numbers. Yes, jumping around again and proving that I don't have the HG. The stock trading like a casino video has caused me to figure out a way to flip the chances of succeeding in voluminous cycles of stop loss and stop win scenarios. It's based on entering a trade on the data available showing trends that continue upward. The range following the statistical average for that stock. I have worked out a way to duplicate the same activity on a Roulette wheel. I have formulated the balance points and worked them against the odds of winning on each spin. My method is both balanced and favorable to me if I win. It is based on a 50 / 50 chance to succeed. But it too pays off at 2 units if won and 1 unit if lost.


Now, based on my discovery I'm leaving the forums for good. I know I've been pissed off and stormed out of tyhe room before. This is not that. I'm gone, I did not pass away and I did not commit suicide as the roomer going around for gr8player is.


It's been fun. It really has been a blast talking and arguing with all of you.


Mark

Quote from: Mr J on August 13, 2018, 03:49:35 AM

My observation, >> the 23 32, 21 12, 31 13. When one of those six hits, the opposite number gets pounded by all (lol). Sometimes I join in, sometimes I don't. I can think of a few others but I won't list them all.

Ken

These are the crazy specials. I've noticed them for years. You see the finale number 5 and so any finale number 0 or 5, (0, 00, 10, 20, 30)  or (5, 15, 25, 35) will hit next.


Next comes the double digits ( 00, 11, 22, 33) when one hits another hits next.


Add to that your group ( 23 32, 21 12, 31 13),  and now you have 18 numbers. That's how I came up with the "Specials."


Instead of them driving me crazy I just turned them into an Even Chance bet. That's what the "S" stands for in my charts.

Just so people won't get confused here. I'm talking about sessions won or lost, not bets won or lost. I now play for short sessions where one good enough trend makes up a good session. I'm still swing trading the Roulette table. This is all about micro movements in small bites, like at a table for no more than an hour if you get into a war to win a session. And more often than not, a session is won with only 15 spins, where only five or six bets were placed on five or six spins of those 15. Most of the great players wait for that sequence where they can kill the casino with a monster trend. I know you advocate that Glen. So do other people here that play for favorable sequences and huge returns on the effort. For that you need to play for hours waiting for the hot spot to start.

It's not programming, but I did program my student #1 in just three short weeks. He won 43 sessions and lost 9 for a win ratio of 4.77:1 . A player using my method needs to win 2.333 times to make up for any lost session, for it to reach balance at 2.333:1 . My student is getting better also. My second student is just starting to practice. He does not want to use the practice software so he is doing all this training the hard way. The more the three of us work on this the more we will know about the win to loss ratio as it pertains to money. If I lower the win ratio to 4:1 then I will win four sessions to every 1 lost session. This should completely destroy the fallacy (1:1) known as the accepted mathematical truth. The house's edge will be the end of that "flat world" thinking. 


In case you can't figure this out, my stop win goal is lower than my stop loss point.