• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Progression bets are nothing more than different size bets on different spins. You could get lucky and win big, or unlucky and lose even more.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Parrondo's Paradox

Started by amk, Jan 20, 07:21 AM 2012

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GARNabby

Turning losing bets into winning ones is a another good perspective.  Winning the (potentially) bad bets amounts to ending up two steps ahead of the one step back.

Some bets are also pivotal.  e.g., if you spend a little more time to, and do, win the first bet, you will be somewhat-more likely to win over that session.  (Primacy-and-recency effects, however you want to look at it.)  Another ex, intentionally losing a bunch of cheap bets in quick succession, and "hammering" the good one.

flukey luke

Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 20, 11:54 AM 2012
You can take 20 - 40 very complex patterns and rotate their use randomly after each win. It's  harder to hit a moving target. The point is to attempt avoiding the killer sequences that can kill any one of these 20 - 40 complex patterns. On their own these patterns are already difficult to hit with the killer sequence. By not using them back to back it makes it way more difficult to match  up for a loss. Obviously a progression is the best way to use  this moving target method.

Bravo Gizmo,

Probably the best explanation of defeating randomness that I have ever read on a public roulette forum.

GARNabby

Quote from: flukey luke on Jan 20, 08:31 PM 2012
Probably the best explanation of defeating randomness that I have ever read on a public roulette forum.
No.  Any number of disjoint, or overlapping, systems played at the interlaced "same time" (, or each together,) amounts to each played separately.  To realize this, sort the plays into rows of ten columns, with each system's bets downward in each column.  The more systems, the less the chance of an overall loss from some specific one, but the more systems with which to lose.

From "reverse engineering" some long-term past outcomes, it's soon realized that the "nemesis pattern" could've been avoided were it PROPERLY, directly changed here-and-there, perhaps even throughout.  But only allowing for the possibility of "squeaking through" by changing it up isn't enough.  In fact at some point, the complexity/randomness of the change-factor of such a system (, which is only another system after all,) defeats the purpose of achieving this potential benefit in a methodical, optimal manner.  Given, of course, at least one valid strategy for the game, itself, to which to apply this, or amplify.

The good news, if any, is that it's these games which are stationary (targets with small HE's).

iggiv

Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 20, 11:54 AM 2012
What makes this work for long stretches is that it takes a very complex segment of spins to kill it. This losing  segment is also a moving target.

You can take 20 - 40 very complex patterns and rotate their use randomly after each win. It's  harder to hit a moving target. The point is to attempt avoiding the killer sequences that can kill any one of these 20 - 40 complex patterns. On their own these patterns are already difficult to hit with the killer sequence. By not using them back to back it makes it way more difficult to match  up for a loss. Obviously a progression is the best way to use  this moving target method.


sooner or later roulette is gonna kill all 20 patterns of yours if u play long sessions. 20 patterns is too simple to defeat roulette on a long run. Maybe on a hit-run only.

Gizmotron

Quote from: iggiv on Apr 29, 02:43 PM 2012

sooner or later roulette is gonna kill all 20 patterns of yours if u play long sessions. 20 patterns is too simple to defeat roulette on a long run. Maybe on a hit-run only.

right you are. The problem with negative progressions are that they pay so little for
all that risk. System play is for beginners.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

GARNabby

Quote from: Gizmotron on Apr 29, 03:03 PM 2012
The problem with negative progressions are that they pay so little for
all that risk.
No, those pay exactly as supposed to over the long-run.

Generally speaking, if there's no strategy to win more, then there's no strategy either to lose more.

Gizmotron

Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 29, 10:24 PM 2012
No, those pay exactly as supposed to over the long-run.

Generally speaking, if there's no strategy to win more, then there's no strategy either to lose more.

You really are full of it. I'm done with this forum. You are crazy. I wouldn't share with you if your life depended it.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

vile

Back to GG...where all desparate are,including our Mr.J...So there you can argue
with each other all night&day long.Neither of you is real player anyhow,only lot of bla-bla.

GARNabby

Quote from: Gizmotron on Apr 29, 11:16 PM 2012
I wouldn't share with you if your life depended it.
Well, guess that you can learn to win at blackjack, and use one of those bets alongside a bad bet at roulette?  (To stay on topic, at least.)

-