+ Register

[Blue_Angel]

Dear readers,

this is a thread which requires your full attention in order to fully comprehend the hidden opportunity.

Let's start with the basic about the Law Of the Third:

In every 37 spins cycle there are 24 numbers which have appeared once or more and 13 sleepers
(numbers which haven't appeared within the last 37 spins)
Those are average numbers and deviations exist, for example I've seen up to 30 different numbers to show up within the 37 last spins and the least were 18 different numbers.
Those extremes are from my experience during gambling sessions and not from simulations.
In order to find the average we should determine the extremes,or in other words the limits, in that case 18 and 30 are the limits.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 start by discarding the outer numbers from both sides:

First discarding 18 and 30
Second discard 19 and 29
Third discard 20 and 28
Fourth discard 21 and 27
Fifth discard 22 and 26
Sixth discard 23 and 25

And we conclude to 24 which is the average total of the appeared numbers within 37 last spins.
Another way to calculate the average is to add all the totals and then divide the total sum with the total of the averages,for example:

18 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 1 time
19 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 2 times
20 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 3 times
21 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 4 times
22 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 5 times
23 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 6 times
24 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 7 times
25 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 6 times
26 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 5 times
27 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 4 times
28 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 3 times
29 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 2 times
30 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 1 times

[(1 x 18)+(2 x 19)+(3 x 20)+(4 x 21)+(5 x 22)+(6 x 23)+(7 x 24)+(6 x 25)+(5 x 26)+(4 x 27)+(3 x 28)+(2 x 29)+(1 x 30) / 49] =>

[(18+38+60+84+110+138+168+150+130+108+84+58+30) / 49]=>

1176 / 49 = 24

This means that if someone was betting one number for 37 spins, 24 times he/she would have won and 13 times he/she would have lost.
To calculate the total sum of lost bets is easy:
13 times multiplied by 37 (1 x 37) equals minus 481 units.

In order to find the total amount of won bets, we should again calculate the averages as we did above,let's see:
We start from the middle numbers within a 37 spin cycle and add 2 more numbers from both sides till we have a total of 24.
18th and 19th spins
17th and 20th spins
16th and 21st spins
15th and 22nd spins
14th and 23rd spins
13th and 24th spins
12th and 25th spins
11th and 26th spins
10th and 27th spins
9th and 28th spins
8th and 29th spins
7th and 30th spins
So we have 24 wins from different spins, now let's calculate the total amount of net profit.

29+28+27+26+25+24+23+22+21+20+19+18+17+16+15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6 = 420

But since we would lose 481 - 420 = -61 loss, therefore the definition negative expectation.

Do we agree so far?
Is everything clear?

Let's see how we could turn the negative expectation into positive without changing a thing in terms of probability, in fact with exactly the same results which have lead us to the negative balance above.

The average expectation is to get twice the wins for every loss, with my method you only need approximately 1 positive cycle for every negative cycle, which means that the proportion of 2 to 1 changed to 1 to 1.

Let me explain how this is possible, the only thing which I'm not going to reveal you here is the criteria which I'm using to select the betting number.
You could pick a random number, or your "lucky" number or anything else you like.

I start flat betting 1 number with 1 unit for 36 spins.
When the betting number appears, no matter in which spin, I re-bet the same number plus its neighbour regarding the wheel layout (right or left doesn't matter)

So now I'm flat betting 2 numbers with 1 unit each for the next 18 spins.
When one of the two betting numbers hits within eighteen spins, then I re-bet those two numbers and adding the other wheel neighbour, thus in total three numbers for the next 12 spins, always flat bet 1 unit each.

When one of the three betting numbers comes, I add one more neighbour,this time from the table layout.
So far we have 4 numbers to flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 9 spins.
Let's see if you keep on winning what happens:

5 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 7 spins
6 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 6 spins
7 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 5 spins
8 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 4 spins
9 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 4 spins
10 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 3 spins
11 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 3 spins

Eleven is the maximum numbers you could bet, this may happen if your first number was 17 for example, because 17 has 2 neighbours on the wheel's layout (like every number) and 8 neighbours regarding the table layout 13,14,15,16,18,19,20,21 (yes,the diagonals too).

What if someone is lucky enough and after adding all neighbours one by one continues to win?
In this case you start adding 1 unit each time you win to only 1 of your betting numbers, you should start from your first selection and continue with the same order.
The minimum total of betting numbers are 6, for example 34 has 2 neighbours at the wheel's layout (17,6) and 3 neighbours at the table (31,32,35)
All together with 34 are six numbers.

We have seen how it might proceed if you are lucky and win frequently, this is not so rare because sometimes the croupiers are hitting specific sectors/numbers frequently (more than their probability)
Personally I've reached two times the 6 numbers bet selection after not many trials, of course this is not always the case.
Let's see what happens when we eventually lose, when you lose during 2 numbers bet selection or more, then you just pick another number and start from scratch, which means flat bet 1 number for the next 36 spins.

There is only one exception, if you lose during 1 number bet selection, in that case you pick another number but this time the betting wouldn't be flat, each and every time our number fails to hit we would add some interest by adding 1 unit.
So the bet on our number would be like this:
1st spin 1 unit
2nd spin 2 units
3rd spin 3 units
4th spin 4 units and so on till your number eventually appears or till you have lost for 37 spins in a row.

If you lose for second consecutive time your 37 bet cycle,this means that somewhere ahead are 4 more winning cycles/rounds but you would only need 2 of them in order to overcome the 2 negative ones.
You change again the number and continue with the dynamic progression till your winning cycles/rounds equals your losing ones.

Let's calculate the losing and winning totals by betting with the dynamic progression instead of the flat bet.
Remember that the average expectation is to lose 13 times within 37 cycles/rounds, so the total loss will be:
[13 x (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36+37)]=>
13 x 703 = -9139 units

Now let's calculate the total amount of profit:

[(7 x 35) - 21] + [(8 x 35) - 28] + [(9 x 35) - 36] +[(10 x 35) - 45] + [(11 x 35) - 55] + [(12 x 35) - 66] + [(13 x 35) - 78] + [(14 x 35) - 91] + [(15 x 35) - 105] + [(16 x 35) - 120] + [(17 x 35) - 136] +[(18 x 35) - 153] + [(19 x 35) - 171] + [(20 x 35) - 190] + [(21 x 35) - 210] + [(22 x 35) - 231] + [(23 x 35) - 253] + [(24 x 35) - 276] + [(25 x 35) - 300] + [(26 x 35) - 325] + [(27 x 35) - 351] + [(28 x 35) - 378] + [(29 x 35) - 406] + [(30 x 35) - 435] =>

(245 - 21) + (280 - 28) + (315 - 36) + (350 - 45) + (385 - 55) + (420 - 66) + (455 - 78) + (490 - 91) + (525 - 105) + (560 - 120) + (595 - 136) + (630 - 153) + (665 - 171) + (700 - 190) + (735 - 210) + (770 - 231) + (805 - 253) + (840 - 276) + (875 - 300) + (910 - 325) + (945 - 351) + (980 - 378) + (1015 - 406) + (1050 - 435) =>

224 + 252 + 279 + 305 + 330 + 354 + 377 + 399 + 420 + 440 + 459 + 477 + 494 + 510 + 525 + 539 + 552 + 564 + 575 + 585 + 594 + 602 + 609 + 615 = +11080

We deduct 9139 from 11080 and we find 1941 net profit, therefore the negative expectation has been turned into positive!
But wait, there are more good news!

Since always the first losing cycle/round costs us 36 units instead of 703, that's why you don't need the exact probability to happen (2 winning cycles for every 1 losing cycle), you need approximately equal winning/losing cycles.
I say approximately because you never know in which spin your number is going to appear, thus the net gain differs.
Let me put it this way,if after 2 losing cycles you have 2 winning ones, then you are in profit and re-start from 1 number flat bet with 1 unit for 36 spins.

But after 3 or more consecutive losing cycles you would need the same amount of winning cycles plus 1 more.
Even in such situation, you can be in the positive with worst results than what probability theory supports.
For example in order to overcome 3 losing rounds, I just need 4 instead of 6 which probability dictates as average.
Of course,the results could also be better than average!:-)

Just remember that in the first phase, while we flat bet, we try to find the possibility to win by frequent repeaters.
We build slowly and safely a net gain and we don't limit the possibility for more profits (sky is the limit!) but we limit the loss.

During any stage of the 1st phase (flat bet) the maximum amount we risk is 36 units or less, if you don't lose during the 1st (1x36) or 2nd stage (2x18) of the first phase, then you would be in the positive.
The longer you keep on winning with the flat bets, the more would be the profit, it's all about what happens first.

Under any circumstance you will know what to do next, I'd recommend a total bankroll of 2000 minimum, 6000 average and 10000 units maximum in order to overcome occasional distribution anomalies.

Angelo A.

[XXVV]

You cannot be serious.

A 10,000 unit bank. 

I once had a Mentor who used progressions. He sometimes  played with over 10,000 units at $5 or the higher equivalent in GBP at the Ritz in London, and with $10 units- $100 units  in LV.

On several occasions he lost the lot, and it caused a complete loss of confidence after the third experience.

My dear friend turned his back terminally on Roulette, as despite a brilliant mind, vast assets earned through a brilliant career in sales and much hard work, his bets had no winning edge - no reason to win that could be explained.

I notice BA you post a lot on this Forum now after much on Roulette30 which has no effective moderation and trolls/ dinosaurs like Real/ Xander still lurk and roam awaiting yet another opportunity to expose their closed and bigoted views usually suggesting AP solves all problems in casino play. However there are also some very intelligent and experienced readers therein and several of your theories were shown to be flawed and void. You have ignored some expert advice given to you on that Forum and you regurgitate the same ideas here. Why?

Do you seriously expect some gullible novice to access this huge amount of money to try your theory or take your word? An experienced player would run a marathon to escape your terms and risk exposure.

I will give an extreme example that shows what can be done when the bet played has a reason for existence , and the player understands and applies it, and is smart and has put in the thousands of hours needed to succeed.  The edge that the winning bet  provides is measured and known within a small variance range, and the bet characteristics are known in terms of risk exposure, behaviour in extremely adverse conditions, and the worst draw downs experienced with the ability to recover known and proven by empirical rigorous testing over 30 sessions at least.

There are winning bets that can be researched - the files are in this Forum's records and those of other Forums detailed within the past 10 years. No final detail will ever be published but a few writers, including myself have tried to share experience and  provide genuine pathways - not false trails.

In my opinion a winning bet needs to be able to be flat staked and can exist and be grown, played from a seed original bank of 100 units if it is valid within the type of limited variance I have seen demonstrated, and which is needed in order to be practical. It can win most sessions, but from the worst it can escape with limited damage, on a sensible but conservative stop loss. This is because the uptrend is demonstrated over 90%  of live play sufficient to take relatively easy profit if the goals are modest and practical and readily achievable. I am talking about  +10 units approx on a 100 RB.  The only change from session to session will be the increase of unit value as profit permits.

I have had some personal dealings with BA and note he demanded I describe my private bet to him because he insisted. He also accused me of 'stealing' some other individual's method, yet claiming ownership. As this was offensive and untrue and I told him as much, I am amazed he is writing here portraying himself as some sort of experienced and wise player. My post is intended as a 'caveat emptor'.

You will have to search a lot deeper to find bets that really have a consistent edge in order to win in roulette, and you will have to explain why those bets work. When you can do that you may write a lot less, or at least focus on a worthy line of thought, rather than re-hash all the old flawed ideas.

Oh and by the way wrt your slander of the MIT BJ professionals - perhaps you might like to contact Semyon Dukach in Boston, or Ben Mezrich. Mr Dukach is available on LinkedIn and is a hugely successful Angel Investor in US startups in technology. I have his email address if you would like to contact him directly. He will put you straight.

If this post is deleted I will post comment in my own Blog section.

[greenguy]

POSITIVE EXPECTATION ON ROULETTE CAN BE PROVED MATHEMATICALLY!

Now wouldn't that be nice.

[TheLaw]

You cannot be serious.

A 10,000 unit bank. 

I once had a Mentor who used progressions. He sometimes  played with over 10,000 units at $5 or the higher equivalent in GBP at the Ritz in London, and with $10 units- $100 units  in LV.

On several occasions he lost the lot, and it caused a complete loss of confidence after the third experience.

My dear friend turned his back terminally on Roulette, as despite a brilliant mind, vast assets earned through a brilliant career in sales and much hard work, his bets had no winning edge - no reason to win that could be explained.

I notice BA you post a lot on this Forum now after much on Roulette30 which has no effective moderation and trolls/ dinosaurs like Real/ Xander still lurk and roam awaiting yet another opportunity to expose their closed and bigoted views usually suggesting AP solves all problems in casino play. However there are also some very intelligent and experienced readers therein and several of your theories were shown to be flawed and void. You have ignored some expert advice given to you on that Forum and you regurgitate the same ideas here. Why?

Do you seriously expect some gullible novice to access this huge amount of money to try your theory or take your word? An experienced player would run a marathon to escape your terms and risk exposure.

I will give an extreme example that shows what can be done when the bet played has a reason for existence , and the player understands and applies it, and is smart and has put in the thousands of hours needed to succeed.  The edge that the winning bet  provides is measured and known within a small variance range, and the bet characteristics are known in terms of risk exposure, behaviour in extremely adverse conditions, and the worst draw downs experienced with the ability to recover known and proven by empirical rigorous testing over 30 sessions at least.

There are winning bets that can be researched - the files are in this Forum's records and those of other Forums detailed within the past 10 years. No final detail will ever be published but a few writers, including myself have tried to share experience and  provide genuine pathways - not false trails.

In my opinion a winning bet needs to be able to be flat staked and can exist and be grown, played from a seed original bank of 100 units if it is valid within the type of limited variance I have seen demonstrated, and which is needed in order to be practical. It can win most sessions, but from the worst it can escape with limited damage, on a sensible but conservative stop loss. This is because the uptrend is demonstrated over 90%  of live play sufficient to take relatively easy profit if the goals are modest and practical and readily achievable. I am talking about  +10 units approx on a 100 RB.  The only change from session to session will be the increase of unit value as profit permits.

I have had some personal dealings with BA and note he demanded I describe my private bet to him because he insisted. He also accused me of 'stealing' some other individual's method, yet claiming ownership. As this was offensive and untrue and I told him as much, I am amazed he is writing here portraying himself as some sort of experienced and wise player. My post is intended as a 'caveat emptor'.

You will have to search a lot deeper to find bets that really have a consistent edge in order to win in roulette, and you will have to explain why those bets work. When you can do that you may write a lot less, or at least focus on a worthy line of thought, rather than re-hash all the old flawed ideas.

Oh and by the way wrt your slander of the MIT BJ professionals - perhaps you might like to contact Semyon Dukach in Boston, or Ben Mezrich. Mr Dukach is available on LinkedIn and is a hugely successful Angel Investor in US startups in technology. I have his email address if you would like to contact him directly. He will put you straight.

If this post is deleted I will post comment in my own Blog section.

At least Blue has the guts to actually post his entire method, instead of claiming to have a "Unicorn System" as you do.

Glad to see that some members stick to reality instead of this fantasy world where you can just claim to have a method, refuse to share it, and then actually criticize others who share their ideas openly.

Even if the method is bunk.............he's still one step ahead of you.............it's called transparency.

[RouletteGhost]

Blue,

Thanks for taking the time to write this up

Whether it worked or didn't work is moot. you are a good contributor

[Blue_Angel]

You cannot be serious.

A 10,000 unit bank.

When a prospective investor or entrepreneur is ready to invest 100,000 in some risky venture has more sense to you?

I once had a Mentor who used progressions. He sometimes  played with over 10,000 units at $5 or the higher equivalent in GBP at the Ritz in London, and with $10 units- $100 units  in LV.

Numbers alone provide no advantage, the key is in the quality, not the quantity.

I notice BA you post a lot on this Forum now after much on Roulette30 which has no effective moderation and trolls/ dinosaurs like Real/ Xander still lurk and roam awaiting yet another opportunity to expose their closed and bigoted views usually suggesting AP solves all problems in casino play.

This is true but I wish it was the only negative there...

You have ignored some expert advice given to you on that Forum and you regurgitate the same ideas here. Why?

Expert advice? Would you mind be more specific?

Do you seriously expect some gullible novice to access this huge amount of money to try your theory or take your word?

No

An experienced player would run a marathon to escape your terms and risk exposure.

How come?

I will give an extreme example that shows what can be done when the bet played has a reason for existence , and the player understands and applies it, and is smart and has put in the thousands of hours needed to succeed.  The edge that the winning bet  provides is measured and known within a small variance range, and the bet characteristics are known in terms of risk exposure, behaviour in extremely adverse conditions, and the worst draw downs experienced with the ability to recover known and proven by empirical rigorous testing over 30 sessions at least.

You are trying to describe what you are doing, this tells me that you consider good only what you are doing.

No final detail will ever be published but a few writers, including myself have tried to share experience and  provide genuine pathways - not false trails.

This is more subjective rather than objective.

In my opinion a winning bet needs to be able to be flat staked and can exist and be grown, played from a seed original bank of 100 units if it is valid within the type of limited variance I have seen demonstrated, and which is needed in order to be practical. It can win most sessions, but from the worst it can escape with limited damage, on a sensible but conservative stop loss. This is because the uptrend is demonstrated over 90%  of live play sufficient to take relatively easy profit if the goals are modest and practical and readily achievable. I am talking about  +10 units approx on a 100 RB.  The only change from session to session will be the increase of unit value as profit permits.

Again you are promoting what you are doing, believe me, I've heard many times this 10% goal per session from individuals who support much different methods...

I even heard that no matter the way you approach the game with a bankroll of 10,000$ and aiming to win 10% per session will success regardless of the method, that's absurd!

Aiming for 10% return per session compromises the balance between risk and reward, in other words if you lose one session you will need ten winning sessions in a row before you lose a second session.

Only someone who gambles for entertainment can consider seriously such approach, to be more or less on the same money after a month but having free beverages and some comps in the form of discounts.
This is good only for recreational players like you, you who plays slots and believe that slots can be beaten without luck and illegal equipment.

Not for the professional players who can manage their impulsions, who have made discipline and patience their second nature.

I have had some personal dealings with BA and note he demanded I describe my private bet to him because he insisted. He also accused me of 'stealing' some other individual's method, yet claiming ownership.

I didn't demand, I've requested and you've answered me: ''Everything is there (your studio) if you can read between the lines...really.''
But I insisted for a clear description because you've wrote a lot in that studio and don't know where to begin!
Eventually you replied me to ask you again after 3 months and I did on last September...
On late June of 2015 I was speaking on the same time with a few members of this forum through Skype and emails, 2 of those members were albahala and XXVV.
User albahala told me that XXVV has childish methods, cherry picking numbers and  that he has  blog where he posted his method.
He actually direct me to his blog and saw the free version of his method, also said that the very same method had an advanced mode which was only available for paid subscribers.
XXVV was one of his paid subscribers and albahala claimed he copied his paid method.

So, instead of pretending the offended and accusing me, the messenger, you should express your arguments directly to albahala  if you think he is lying against you!

Oh and by the way wrt your slander of the MIT BJ professionals - perhaps you might like to contact Semyon Dukach in Boston, or Ben Mezrich. Mr Dukach is available on LinkedIn and is a hugely successful Angel Investor in US startups in technology. I have his email address if you would like to contact him directly. He will put you straight.

XXVV, it seems you are a secret fan of my posts at roulette30, what I said there about MIT is just the truth.

There are many misconceptions which are misleading people, I believe there is a purpose in this and if you think for a moment who would benefit from those you would realize who are behind this big bubble!

Besides that post was not originally mine but re-posted from a blackjack forum.
XXVV, do you think you know better than the blackjack players who originally posted it?
Have you ever bother with blackjack at all?

To ask the suspect if he is guilty has never made sense!

So mr XXVV,  excuse me if I don't "buy" what you have to "sell"!

[XXVV]

From time to time I like to deliberately post something not on my Blog that  provokes responses. I would prefer if the responses were constructive but always they are very revealing. Roulette is not an easy game, and for those who are drawn to play seriously I advocate sensible control, flat staking and a method well practiced, and if possible proven. Chasing your tail with unplayable dreams on naive theories will just result in tears after heavy loss and humiliation.

In my earlier note directed toward BA I referenced his continual publishing of fruitless and useless methodologies requiring improbably large banks. These were rightly addressed and derided on Roulette30. He has left there, and moved here, and immediately brings baggage, so I simply wanted to caution readers from my direct factual experience.

My note merely refers to principles, not my bet, or necessarily anyone's bet although I know such winning bets exist because I have seen the results of some in application, and the strict criteria of 29 wins in 30 sessions for proof of tight control over variance, is a well known benchmark.

None of the other remarks from BA or others deserve comment. I simply advocate responsible and intelligent play in the casino, and preferably responsible and intelligent writing on this Forum, not time wasting re-working of failed applications which often have errors when closely inspected.

You cannot beat the odds in roulette but instead, in order to win you have to find some details in the game which transcend those limitations to find a consistent edge in your favour. This edge on all successful bets will vary within a range, a window.  In my bet I have done this by inspecting short cycle clustering, below the surface of most observation. I cannot comment about others in detail because they are secret but I am aware they exist. As stated ad nauseam no-one, not a single intelligent sane professional player, will ever reveal in total detail how to win consistently at roulette, and to expect such is just dreaming.

My message is very simple and I encourage serious study into worthwhile areas of roulette spin outcome behaviour - not bias or wheel tracking-
I am convinced that it is the hardest work to find these opportunities and it takes at least the 10,000 man hour benchmark of research time in order to understand.

The whole purpose of my writing here can be distilled to one fundamental principle. You cannot beat a game consistently that has a negative expectation. You are wasting your time trying to trap sleepers in particular because in random behaviour the outs can be vast. Better to try to net hots, but they of course are inconsistent. If we want a consistent winning bet we must find something something in the game, in the nature of the game and its constituent flow. There is the answer to look into the flow. The only reason I reference my bet occasionally is what else can I do? I cannot cite a private bet that belongs to a trusted colleague, although I have seen examples that are proven. They are tight and become tighter with refinement. Do you see what I am trying to say. You need less, not more of risk collateral. The same with design - I do much better work when controlled by a strict budget and client brief. We need constraints/ a framework within which to weave.

that's enough.

[Blue_Angel]

From my extended testing I've never encounter worse than 3 losing cycles in a row and totally 4 losing cycles have been turned in profit within 8 cycles.
This was my worst session so far but results could greatly differ because you could use entirely different selection criteria regarding which number to bet.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

To calculate the total sum of lost bets is easy:
13 times multiplied by 37 (1 x 37) equals minus 481 units.
-------------------

If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 37spins
then it has 12more cycles to lose...
If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 74spins
then it has 11more cycles to lose...
If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 3cycles
then it has 10more cycles to lose...
--------------------------------------------
13cycles multiplied by 37 =481spins


and we may see, say, number v,y,z,
that sleep for the entire spins of say 100spins.

and a few number will stubborn, and thus, we aim for, say LAST FOUR numbers that has sleep for the whole spins,not yet hit,

then the simplest is to wait for the LAST FOUR unhit numbers, for they have sleep, for 1,2,3 or more cycles, thus the averages 13, now reduced to 12,11,10,9..so on,

and then bet them till profit, or cut loss...
AGREED?
I don't think FOUR numbers, together, will sleep for 1000spins?

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

To calculate the total sum of lost bets is easy:
13 times multiplied by 37 (1 x 37) equals minus 481 units.
-------------------

If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 37spins
then it has 12more cycles to lose...
If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 74spins
then it has 11more cycles to lose...
If we see, say, number x, had sleep, for 3cycles
then it has 10more cycles to lose...
--------------------------------------------
Then number X, if have sleep for 3cycles,
has 10more cycles possiblity to lose,
thus 10x37=-370u.

And we need to ensure, the theory that it will hit,
in 24 cycles,out of next 34cycle,
[13+24, already slept for 3cycles]

Thus we need to ensure, that the 24 cycles hit must win more than 370u.
[370/24=+15u]

[Blue_Angel]

Your theory is interesting but I think the virtual limit is not 481 spins (13 x 37) it must be 666 (18 x 37).

Therefore is impractical for someone to wait so long before bets.

Personally I'm using the hottest number per 37 spins cycle, if there are 2 with 4 hits each I bet both but I expect 2 hits regardless from which of these 2 numbers, if I have 3 numbers with 4 hits each I bet all 3 of them but I expect 3 hits in the next 37 spins, regardless from which of these 3 numbers will hit.

If I have 6 numbers with 3 hits each I'm betting all these 6 numbers for the next 37 spins and I'm expecting 6 hits, regardless from which of these 6 numbers will hit.

[Mr J]

"Therefore is impractical for someone to wait so long before bets" >> ?? SAY WHAT??

I thought with "you guys", if it works on paper, it COUNTS as a winner?

(Laying out 163 dollar chips in a couple seconds for example).
Hey, if it works on paper, it's a winner! (lmao)

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

"Therefore is impractical for someone to wait so long before bets" >> ?? SAY WHAT??

I thought with "you guys", if it works on paper, it COUNTS as a winner?

(Laying out 163 dollar chips in a couple seconds for example).
Hey, if it works on paper, it's a winner! (lmao)

Ken

What are you blathering about buddy??

[Mr J]

I think it went over your head, no biggie.

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

I think it went over your head, no biggie.

Ken

That was a good one! LOL!

I'm Kavouras disguised as BlueAngel! LOL!

OMG, laughing so hard!