OMG!!! I can t believe this!!! my maths teacher gave me the Roulette HG today!!!

[GLC]

Well said Sam.

It was this false belief of waiting for something to not happen for a very long time or something to happen a lot of times in a row that got me hooked on this game thinking I could just waltz into a casino with my newly acquired knowledge, fill my shopping cart with their money and live happily ever after.

It was devastating to find out that waiting didn't change my chance of winning on the very next bet.

Oh well, all was not a total loss.  I do enjoy the back and forth we have on the forum even if most of it is swimming around in a cesspool of 'gambler's fallacy'.

You're like a pin going around looking for someone's bubble to burst.  You're obviously over 60.  Too much wisdom for a young whipper snapper.

What the heck is a whipper snapper anyway?

All kidding aside.  Good post.

George

[TwoCatSam]

Thanks, G......

I am 64 and I will Google "whipper snapper"!

Sam

[Monte Carlo]

Catalyst

I am confused by your question. 

In this case I just used the spins that were provided earlier in the thread beyond that I haven't given it much thought. 

Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

Perhaps I need to explain the logic behind my assumption.

In theory by playing 3 separate games yet identical systems you are covering all three possibilities in relation to to bet on wither columns or divisions. 

In an idealistic game without zero.  The sums of the deviation from mean equal 1.

A+B+C=1

By stop gapping losses at a low progression you should overcome zero by virtue of the bets not placed which would be subtracted from aggregate bets.  In an game with infinite bet limits and no zero this would provide a balanced system.  Payouts would equal bets taken in.

By entering but more importantly exiting in a staggered manner you overcome cumulative progressive bets that haven't payed off yet which would in turn be negative to your bankroll.

General system remains as I stated earlier.

Again haven't put much thought into this and I could be overlooking something.

Monte Carlo

[Amazin]

any more progress on this? is this a long term winner?

[HP]

This is worth testing, I think.

1.  Follow the dozen/column.
3.  Progression is 1,2,3,4,5, STOP and continue with 1 unit.
4.  Go back to 1 after a hit.
5.  Quit when you hit your goal.
6.  Play live or RNG, shouldn't matter.
7.  Provide feedback on your testing.

First I tested 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, etc etc, and after loss of 9 units (not good for my heart) I decided to limit the betting units to 5. Ok, many losses, but the good part is: the BALANCE is positive! My winning SO FAR are more than my losses.
After about one hour of testing I reached +30 units.   
Will continue ...

[icashbot]

Wow Jordan, this sounds really good!!!
Please post the method as soon as you can so we can have a go too.
Best of luck,
CashGrowth.

what happened to this method? did anything come from it or?

[icashbot]

Wow Jordan, this sounds really good!!!
Please post the method as soon as you can so we can have a go too.
Best of luck,
CashGrowth.

what happened to this method? did anything come from it or?

[MrJ]

It was devastating to find out that waiting didn't change my chance of winning on the very next bet.
  I do enjoy the back and forth we have on the forum even if most of it is swimming around in a cesspool of 'gambler's fallacy'.