Thought it was interesting
Wanted to bring it back for discussion
Mini games of 3
Always sitting out for 2 spins. Bet on 3rd spin only when previous 2 dozen were different. Betting against a unique 3
If played with a progression it is a dangerous 1 3 9
That being said, in my tests, in most cases using this method WHEN, not if, but when the 1 3 9 is lost, I am typically still in profit against starting bankroll
To lose you would need many unique sets
As we know from generous raymanz, unique sets ON average based on his 66 thousand spin test should happen on average every 200 spins. I keep double checking that math and it seems true
This test had a bit more but still was easy
Obviously we won't sit at the wheel this long but here it is
Posting to discuss this method. So we would all benefit from saving the "it won't work" and "progressions" comments. :)
I made an error above
Those stats were on unique repeats which means nothing for this method
So I will correct it
In 66 thousand spins on average each of the 9 unique sets should occur roughly 800 times each. Surprisingly each one of the 9 were right around 800 in rays test
Fascinating if you ask me
Every 83 spins each unique set should hit roughly
There's 9 unique sets total
So roughly every 9 spins on average there should be ONE unique set show
In the 99 spins above there were 8! Possibly a couple of more if not in mini games
That's pretty damn close to 9 in 83 spins
Fascinates me
I refuse to accept that a method cannot be created based on this
Hey look at it like this
It's straight and to the point
And not a ridiculous long post leaving you head scratching
Even mogul can get this! Although I'm sure he will spend the evening looking for the losing zumma a page (wish I had that kinda time)
What's your point? (Other than you think I'm stupid)
Originally you were chasing the 4 in a row that had 2 out of 3 dozen and playing
for it to continue to sleep.
Is this a change? If you look at it, there are enough losses (3rd dozen hits)
to win with a nice gradual progression on a 2-1 bet.
PS. You quote a lot of large numbers and statistics. Not
sure where they come from.
But most of my zumma stuff doesn't take "time" as you say. It
really doesn't take long to see if something smells funny.
Sometimes you hold my feet to the fire for being too quick on the
draw or something, but when I take the book and lose in 10 spins,
it doesn't leave me feeling rosey.
I like to figure I can make it through 3-5 sessions to at least digest it.
i have the same zumma book u do
this doesnt lose fast
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Feb 01, 09:26 PM 2017
i have the same zumma book u do
this doesnt lose fast
I was referring to other indictements that you've made. And by your own
estimation, I have more time to use the book. (I'm straining to
stay "in the box")
So we are looking at the last 3 results now?
See my attachment in post one
The greens and reds are the bets after the trigger
Hi RG,
I had an idea on this stemming from my "ChainBreaker" dozens thread on your old forum which you may recall...
It involves the dreaded WAITING. Remember - patience is a virtue.
WAIT until you've had AT LEAST 2 OR MORE "Repeat Dozens" to occur in sequence.
(A repeat dozen is a string of 2 OR MORE of the same dozen happening)
Then ONLY after 2 FURTHER NON-REPEAT DOZEN results I bet that the LAST DOZEN HIT decision will not be a repeater!
So it is a DOUBLE DOZEN bet. (Flat or mild progression)
Example qualifier:
3123322212; here bet D1 and D3
Example qualifier:
231111113322213; here bet D1 and D2
If win - completely retrack starting from last result.
If lose - completely retrack starting from next non-repeater.
Best wishes,
A.