Triple-felt matrix selection:


Bet for the occurrence of the second appearance of a 3-number line (trio) aligned on the same direction, regardless of placement.


Illustration with tomorrow's actuals from first open wiesbaden table.

Site: http://www.spielbank-wiesbaden.de/index.php?id=82&view=archiv&table=T2&date=26.11.2012

[attachimg=1]

Download: [attachmini=2]

Clarifications:

5 5 is simply five on each column:

[attachimg=1]

7 7 is simply seven on each column:


[attachimg=2]

10 10 is simply ten on each column:


[attachimg=3]

---

@Sam/All

Could you grasp the whole progression? It is VERY EASY once you see it written in single bets line by line 

Remember: It only rises unit AFTER A WIN, so on any loss you DROP BACK TO 5-5.

This is how the 2nd and 3rd columns correlate to the Wheel:

European:

[attachimg=1]

American:

[attachimg=2]

---

Now I'm going to try to explain the staking plan as best as I can.

This is a great concept for timeline players, it is relevant if you are a player more in line with the concept of each session having its own particular "fingerprint", in this case its own set of steady locations throughout the session's spins.

With a steady locations tracker you do get a clear picture about it.

Here is a text-mode tracker for the double-streets:

[attachmini=1]

[attachimg=2]


This principle can be extrapolated to every other location.

Thanks for the chart dear Bayes   


Your effort is appreciated since it is the big picture.

P.S. The generalized opinion is only real-money bets alone should be included

First thing people think about is playing at home until propitious conditions, then rushing to the casino!

Quote from: spike on November 30, 2012, 02:47:02 AM
I don't know what 'your own permanence' means.

...It means the exact set of numbers you lay bets on builds a numerical set of its own.

You may witness 40 spins in an hour.

But if you only laid chips on 4 spins, then 'your own permanence' (set of played spins) has those 4 bets only.

This "personal set" builds up regardless of places.

Here's a quote:

Quote
The great French scientist Henri Chateau expressed it as axiomatic:
Statistical laws are satisfied regardless of the samples which are considered, provided that the samples are random.

We have talked about this many times, but in other languages around the world nomenclatures can differ.

...slow but surely.

We need to keep sustaining the focus on quality vs quantity.

Slow but surely... 

I get you Sam.

Yes, we are aware every coder out there is free to charge what s/he wishes or even charge nothing at all... As to me, I'm devoting time to create what I believe is the best way, an "all-in-one" (tracker, tester, clicker and bot) which is extensible to any method.

While single trackers and the odd clicker can be given for free, this framework isn't going to be given away. It is intended to be distributed to subscribers, accompanying the $5.99 membership for the site.

Ralph, Normy, Ophis, Stef and any other fellow coder can charge as they please, but that's how I envision my framework: everyone puts up a little (their subscription) and they (subscribers) benefit as a group, so -as you can see- I'm with you on this one; there won't be only two people rowing, but the paying subscriber group as a whole

Cheers.

We have an opportunity to start with a clean slate here.

Let's focus on what is productive, past and present.

If a thread isn't really bringing any fruition, then yes; it risks deletion.

Quote from: spike on November 28, 2012, 04:53:58 AM
But random outcomes don't follow any cycle you
can depend on.

Oh! You are certainly right: nobody can really DEPEND on something as long as it's random.

We use this splitting the game in cycles only as points of reference, in order to being able to help us visualize the flow of the game.

Guarantees? None.

Anybody who talks about a "guaranteed outcome" in a random scenario isn't really to be taken in a serious light. Random is and will continue to be by definition an scenario where we can't get a probability of 1 (absolute certainty); we can at most use  our frame of reference (whatever that be: system, method, belief, vodoo, etc.) in order to speculate.

Steady locations are those who are appearing once or more in consecutive cycles.


When you tabulate your data in cycles, you can see the steady locations of the sessions as those which CURRENTLY have the longest vertical lines, having showed consistently during the most amount of cycles.


Try tabulating your data this way and you'll see the steady locations show naturally in the game.


This is the number of spins per cycle you should use:


- Even chance: 2 spins
- Dozen/Column: 3 spins
- Double-street: 6 spins.
- Corner/quad: 9 spins.
- Street: 12 spins.
- Split: 18 spins.
- Single number: 36 spins.


Proper programs can help too.

I do think you can perfectly measure winning and losing streaks if you divide the game in CYCLES.

Cycle's spins matching the location's payout (including the wager; as in the "break even" point). i.e. a straight-up number has a 36-spin cycle, a double-street has a 6-spin one and so forth for the rest of the betting locations.

Under this light, you can measure winning and losing streaks by checking how many consecutive cycles has it shown.

...When accounting for large chunks of spins, even numbers with plenty of misses can appear to be "hot" given their raw number of shows, but when measuring things in cycles, you can rapidly determine what's "on" right now (in the current cycle) and also automatically can avoid what is currently non-appearing or cold.

I like it since it is a way to "morph with the game"; and in this game, it is better to learn to be dynamic. A cycle-oriented approach can be of assistance for this.

My 2c.

Regards.

1) A method is posted.

2) Tester is made.

3) We reach conclusions.

---

Ideally, we end up having a library of systems/methods to test

It is up to fellow members to discuss upon the methods and test them.

Coders in the community would ideally provide the programs for their analysis to be done (myself included).

We end up enjoying the process from the first posting of an idea to the conclusion after testing them, perhaps making some tweaks on the way, and some would even ed up playing the method if it suits them.

Well, that's how I think the site should work