Hi everyone,
I have been lurking many different roulette forums before I joined this one. I was reading on vlsroulette. com about the strategy used by Steve Morgan where he plays against groups of 4 columns repeating history. So for example if 4 spins produced 1231 he would then wait and wait until he saw 4 spins repeat after each other. Sometimes he would wait all day to see a 4 number progression repeat itself. So his bet wouldn't come until the sequence went 1231 123* he would then play a double columns on 2 & 3. he would also use a $10. 00 safety bet on 0.
Working off that. . .
The odds of history not repeating itself would greatly increase the more numbers you used. A three column progression has 81 possible outcomes. A four number is 243 etc. . . Your progressive betting would increase pretty high with the more numbers you use.
For a 3 #
5 5
10 10
30 30
For a 4 #
5 5
10 10
30 30
90 90
As you can see the bankroll increase dramatically the more numbers you use.
With that being said, from what I am gathering in my methods it seems that playing each spin against the column that landed 4 spins ago and following the pattern could generate good profits especially with a safety 0 or 00 bet.
I understand that roulette was made to be unbeatable, but using the idea of history not repeating itself along with a progressive betting system, you could be quite profitable. The only unfortunate thing is the amount each bet would progress in your progression. You could stop at a 3 or 4 number progression and try to recoup your losses still using the idea of history not repeating itself.
Sorry if that all sounded like gibberish, it makes sense in my head. I just think utilizing the "history not repeating itself" method, with the proper progression, could create a system that won't beat roulette but put the odds heavily in your favor.
Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-Taylor
Hi Taylor.
In these words:-[reveal]As you can see the bankroll increase dramatically the more numbers you use.[/reveal]
do U mean the BankRoll REQUIREMENT increases dramatically?
And in Ur first few words of the description, [reveal]he would also use a $10. 00 safety bet on 0.[/reveal], can U clarify the Zero/Double Zero bet quantity plz?
Thank U. ;)
Thanks for the reply. I apologize for the misunderstandings.
Yes I do mean "bankroll requirement".
And, as for the 0 and 00 amounts. . .
The progressions I wrote before would be used if you decided to not bet on 0 or 00.
In pretty much all cases you do have either a 0 or 00 wheel so the progression would look more like this. . .
For a three number. . .
5 5 (columns) 1 1 (0 & 00)
16 16 (columns) 2 2 (0 & 00)
55 55 (columns) 5 5 (0 & 00)
My math might be off from doing it in my head. The first bet is for a profit, the second and third if necessary is to break even from the losses on the previous bets. The 0 and 00 bet could be quite profitable if it hits. Not bad for a safety bet.
The only bad thing is starting with a $5. 00 progression you only gain 3 units if you win the column bet on the first spin. You could raise the stakes but then your bankroll requirement becomes much greater.
Hi Sweetxtay
This method does work, however when I've tested this method over 1000 live spins on different tables I have seen it repeat itself twice in a row qnd this has a big impact on your BR, the most I saw was a 6 spin repeat so maybe you could try it with 2 virtual losses before you start betting
Hope that helps
Gordon
Thanks Gordonline,
The only thing I can think of, is to only allow yourself 3 losses. You would then wait for 4 new spins and then restart your system. This would allow you to keep a steadier bankroll and hopefully not take a huge blow.
That would reduce the hit on your BR and if you went with the 2 virtual losses you would certainly win more often, and if you combined it with the columns it would prevent you from waiting too long for a trigger.
Must admit I haven't tested recently on RNG's as been busy looking at another strategy, if you do let me know how you get on and if I revisit it I will do the same
Gordon