Quote from: NathanDetroit on July 06, 2016, 12:10:06 PM
All 6 EC are involved   with  this particular bet selection. Bring the proper bankroll. No short cuts.

Knowledge of the game, bankroll, MM, and Discipline .

This reply   is given  as a guide line only. For recreational purposes only. Play at your own risk

Not  subject to any further discussion..

Nathan Detroit.

There are 3 EC pair, and they are getting bet in one progression of 3 bets,
based on the results of each pair.

1,2,4.  That's it.

Quote from: NathanDetroit on April 16, 2016, 10:22:39 PM
No one will ever steal this idea. At a $ 5 min table this requires 6 different bankrolls @ $ 200.-- , one for each EC or $ 1,200.-- for one session. Be prepared for 3 sessions   and bring $ 3,600.-

Playing all 6 EC  is  not  exactly what an experiencedr player would  ever consider..


http://www.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=21594.msg154190;topicseen#msg154190-

What are you talking about? He's talking about a single
thread $5 bet.

Quote from: TheLaw on July 02, 2016, 08:01:27 PM
I think that Ignatus just enjoys the thrill of the hunt.

Betting against 2 turning to 3 dozens means betting 2 dozens......which does not have the same recovery ability.

Again, the pace is really what kills the method......unless we could create tons of dozen bets with different numbers.

The 2 dozen bet just seems like low-hanging fruit that would have been seen long ago.

Also interesting to note that the 2 and 3+ dozens almost rarely ever show back to back:

LLLLWWLLWLLWLLLLLWWLLLLWWWLLWLLLWLLW (W=3+/L=2)

222233223223222223322223332232223223
232323232323232323232323232323232323 (2 and 3 back to back)
s  s    ss       ss s  s  ss     s  ss     s      s      ss (where 2 and 3 back to back occur)

The low hanging fruit was addressed as grassroots on another forum for
120 pages. And I tried for real and lost.

So I don't see any3 triples in a row. But this goes to show that anything
can happen.  All I mean is that this holds a lot more promise.

I don't see any triple 3,s in a row. OR you could play 1,3 and eat the
8 units from time to time.

You've got to do SOMETHING.  And they all are like, as you say, Ignatius
picking unlikely situations.

Quote from: Tomla on July 02, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
being called the thread stopper by the thread killer is quite an honor Mogul----thanks

Didn't hand that title out yet.

Just referring to the methodology.  "street behavior".
Not roulette street.  Don't waste my time.  If my title
precedes me, then you should just go. Not talk in riddles.

Or stay and talk about roulette.

Quote from: Tomla on July 02, 2016, 04:34:33 PM
it's a pretty decent system and works even better on columns
have fun

What has your playing experience been with it?  Doesn't take long
to generate a long list of losses looking for triples.

What is it about columns that might make it better?

More is needed than a general comment.  We did tests and work on this.
And it's the way of people who post opinions with no work that make
threads stop

Quote from: TheLaw on July 02, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
I stopped testing for two main reasons  :

1) Wait time between bets.......sometimes 10+ spins at a time

2) Saw the progression get out of control very quickly

Perhaps a more conservative progression could save this, but the lack of betting opportunities means it will always be flawed.

Ignatus has several other methods that use "rare events" to create profit or loss very quickly. Approaching it from a mm standpoint, those methods would be more effective and efficient using a 2 out of 3 games won strategy.

Having said that..........method still looks pretty solid with a large bankroll for each session, and time to wait it out. My worst was as high as +20 units bet, so a safe session bankroll would need to be 1000 units in my opinion. Keep in mind that in my last test it went downhill for over 100 spins.........so 2+hrs at a table waiting for recovery.

Well your results are interesting. But so are mine.  I'm glad you dredged out the
results that you did. To me, it always seemed curious about Ignatus, that all he posted was
charts.  Pretty good drawdowns. But in some peoples mind, there is no meat on the bone or
skin in the game.

That's what you added. But I don't see a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Did you look at my latest (actual) run?  Tells the same thing.  Way more doubles than
greater than.  I think it still has hope. All my results actually win, flat betting. And when
you play both you get better amounts of spins.

Basically your work seein up to 20 units bet confirms what I have been thinking.

I'd like a forthright answer from Ignatius about how it was actually working.

Keep plugging. Don't shut your mind of to

a) betting for doubles and
b) possibly switching sides.

B is a general concept that I think could be useful.

Well that makes perfect sense.  I decide what I am (or am not) going to do when
I go and DO IT!!!

Like last week when I thought I'd give the 1,3,9 grassroots thing a try. And lost
at the 3rd group of 3.  $120 at a $5 table ($130 minute the 2 wins), and got it out
of my system.  Just turned the grinder and let it run.

But I think that the cautious approach is what helps. Like your 3 loss rule.
That loss was the first actual play "run" that I've made in possibly a decade.
But my plan is in place when I walk in.

But your answer still doesn't delineate much of what you smugly seem
to portray as a leg up through your picture of Sanatra and guarded descriptions
which create mystery.

OK,  So I stopped by yesterday. I attached my session.

I sat down and wrote the marquis data just to get some data and
caught up about at the top of the 2nd columb.

So I put my $20 in and figured I'd try to get some double hits.
double dozen $5 bets. Look at the 1st columb.  All doubles.
Wouldn't you know, I bet the ONLY TWO that went over 2 dozen,
and lost my $20.  That's all I brought.

So I continued to track. But the double dozen thing worked out
wonderfully.

What do you think Law? OR anyone else?  Did everyone run off the deck
like a sinking ship?

I can't explain how going for 3 dozen after two has survived this long. But the
logic is backwards. Especially where you have a lay situation.

Isn't it funny how EC's can go on consistently for many streaks, but the
double dozen can't?  And it is for the matter of 6 numbers.  Seems like
if you could isolate which double street that is, you could do something with it.
I don't think you can. But what a dramatic change in results. For the
matter of a double street.

Quote from: TheLaw on June 30, 2016, 11:44:31 PM
The following is a W/L from Grassroots 1-2-3 using Table #1 from 1.06.16 #185 spins

Note the long runs of wins.........perhaps a parlay?

WWWWLLWLWWLLLLWWWWWLLWWWWWWWLWLLLWWWLWWWWWWWLWLWWWWWWLLWLWWWWLWWLWWWLLWWLWLLLWLWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWW

WWWWLWWWWWLLWWLLWLLWLLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLLWWWWWLLLWWLWLWWWWLWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWLWLWW

Just went to Plainridge quick. Here are my results. I was seeing a lot of doubles
and I played them. Put $10 in and took out $20.  Met a friend playing slots and he
lost $20.

17B   2        B
6B     1        C
10B   1   2   A
15B   2        C
00
13B   2        A
17B   2   3   B
7R     1        A
3R     1   2   C
13B   2        A
14R   2   2   B
4B    1         A
28B   3        A       2
33B   3   2   C
13B   2        A
35B   3        B
9R     1        C
22B   2        A
13B   2   2   A       2
5R     1        B
27R   3        C
31B   3   2   A
16R   2        A       2
36R   3        C
26B   3   2   B
16R   2        A
18R   2   2   C
12R   1        C       2
31B   3        A
4B     1        A
19R   2        A       3
14R   2   2   A
1R     1        A
19R   2        A
14R   2        B
14R   2   3   B        2
12R   1        C
17B   2        B
3R     1        C
15B   2        C        2
29B   3        B
20B   2        B
00


12 2's and 3 3's.  Just flat betting was OK.
Played the other two. I wasn't aggressive. Just
won my $10 while watching.

Quote from: Dino246 on November 25, 2012, 11:59:50 AM
Atlantis.

Sorry...first set of spins i found don't seem good !

How would you play this sequence, B+M Live-Dealer,24-05-12.

10,0,25,13,32,10,14,22,35,11,15,12,23,10.


Many Thanks.

Dino.

If it's not working then why not play FOR the number to repeat and get
2-1?  Seeoms odd, but I'm finding/wondering how it seems easier to MATCH
the 2-1 result than go against it.

Quote from: NathanDetroit on June 21, 2016, 08:01:44 PM
  If charting makes  your day then go ahead.


Maybe this  might be more to someones liking http://betselection.cc/dozencolumn-7/bet-selections-for-columns-made-very-simple/




For  recreational purposes only. Play at your own risk.

Nathan, I think we see what you are saying. But the part that's missing is, if you
put yourself in the middle, playing like you are treading water, then what is the
plan or goal in play. And how do you get there?

These methods will, obviously, drift back and forth like a pendulum while using no
specific thing to push it one way or the other.  But there needs to be some methodology.

Can you add that in?  (And please without another "non answer"?)

Whatever I think, I can't ignore the fact that everyone says this thing hasn't lost.
I also can't ignore how cool it does recover.

So I think I need an attitude adjustment, and am trying to find it.

Quote from: mogul397 on June 29, 2016, 03:43:43 PM
I don't look at it like 9000 spins or bullet proof. But in case you missed my latest
experience with grass roots, on paper or real, I'd like to know I could experience
a win (like 26 units) before I lost the 1,3,9. Something I can wrap my head around.
And I lost TWICE by the 5th set. Once on paper and once real. (Which, BTW, has me
intrigued how randomly I can pick 3 single dozens in a row to lose 3 double dozen in
a row)

Page 229 in zumma. Haven't looked at it yet.

2
1
2
1
3
3
3           3
1
1           2
3
1
3
3
3           3
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
0
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
0
1
2
2             2
1
2
3
2
3
2
1
1              2
2
0
3
2
2              3
2
1
1              2
2
2              2
3
3              2
1
1
1             3
3
2
2
2              3

Page 230

3
3               2
2
1
2
3
3               2
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1                 3
2
1
3
2
2
2                 3
2
3
3                 2
1
1                 2
2
1
1                 2
3
1
0
1
1                  3
1
1
1
2
2                   2
1
2
3
1
2
2                  2
1
2
2                   2
1
1                   2


And awful lot of doubles.  And statistically I think it is more likely for
a double. In the case of dozens, like 2-1 instead of even on EC's.

So yeah, you're laying odds. But if you don't have a crazy progression,
it doesn't get out of control. Even though a 1.3.9 (or even 27) progression

OK, so I looked at my data above. Pg 230 ended with 4 doubles.

And I continued to page 231.  Without typing it out, I see 6 more doubles
before there is a triple.  So that is 10. That's a lot, and is a specific topic to address.
I think we have the issue cornered and defined.

Which is why I advocate switching sides at some point until the tide turns.
As it happens, on page 231, after the first triple, there are a couple more.

So my question is, do we play the method with a large bankroll and let it work
out, or is it prudent to have a stop gap of some kind?

In your examples, law, I don't think I see any terrible streaks of losses that created
your "not for the faint of heart" run.  But it also seems true that it didn't take much
to find it. Seems like it turned up pretty quick in the examples.

Which is what I refer to a bit in my "wallpaper test".

But I will also admit that I agree and love how quick it recovers with 2-1 payouts.

Thoughts?

I have to process this.  But good work law and thanks. I think that you
quite quickly demonstrate the quick chance for a swing.  Maybe I need
to think more aggressive.

If nothing else it is good to put out nose to the grindstone together. Just
checking my mail at bed time.  Sure I will be dreaming about this.

Thanks

Maybe I should process the data that I posted.

I don't look at it like 9000 spins or bullet proof. But in case you missed my latest
experience with grass roots, on paper or real, I'd like to know I could experience
a win (like 26 units) before I lost the 1,3,9. Something I can wrap my head around.
And I lost TWICE by the 5th set. Once on paper and once real. (Which, BTW, has me
intrigued how randomly I can pick 3 single dozens in a row to lose 3 double dozen in
a row)

Page 229 in zumma. Haven't looked at it yet.

2
1
2
1
3
3
3           3
1
1           2
3
1
3
3
3           3
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
0
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
0
1
2
2             2
1
2
3
2
3
2
1
1              2
2
0
3
2
2              3
2
1
1              2
2
2              2
3
3              2
1
1
1             3
3
2
2
2              3

Page 230

3
3               2
2
1
2
3
3               2
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1                 3
2
1
3
2
2
2                 3
2
3
3                 2
1
1                 2
2
1
1                 2
3
1
0
1
1                  3
1
1
1
2
2                   2
1
2
3
1
2
2                  2
1
2
2                   2
1
1                   2


And awful lot of doubles.  And statistically I think it is more likely for
a double. In the case of dozens, like 2-1 instead of even on EC's.

So yeah, you're laying odds. But if you don't have a crazy progression,
it doesn't get out of control. Even though a 1.3.9 (or even 27) progression