Hello dear Walter,
I think the method didn't have interest because (perhaps) it was misunderstood. I read it myself and see ambiguity. Please tell me the one scenario you are trying to convey:
A) You bet all splits spun in first 18 on next cycle of 18 spins.
B) You erase all spins for the next 18-spin cycle, letting the hits add-up from scratch.
This is what I believe is needed to be explained in order to clear it. Because if it's A, then this is no different than "Bet all splits spun on previous 18 spins". If on the other hand it is B, then I see how it can have merit (even as we know it is still a mechanical bet). Kindly confirm!
Vic
I think the method didn't have interest because (perhaps) it was misunderstood. I read it myself and see ambiguity. Please tell me the one scenario you are trying to convey:
A) You bet all splits spun in first 18 on next cycle of 18 spins.
B) You erase all spins for the next 18-spin cycle, letting the hits add-up from scratch.
This is what I believe is needed to be explained in order to clear it. Because if it's A, then this is no different than "Bet all splits spun on previous 18 spins". If on the other hand it is B, then I see how it can have merit (even as we know it is still a mechanical bet). Kindly confirm!
Vic