Ok.
Here's a place for it. I won't tell you my allegance (but feel free to guess heheh!!) but do hit and run tactics make any difference to overall odds and outcome over a long period of testing?
Some will argue that it does, and some will argue that mathematics proves there is no difference.
I propse this cunundrum:-
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for no longer that two seconds at a time and then take them out. I do this thirty times.
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for a whole minute, and then take them out.
On which occassion am I more likely to lose my toesies??
Be warned. This kind of practice, much like roulette, could also cost you an arm and a leg!!
I welcome your comments.
Woods
Quote from: woods101 on Apr 15, 08:56 AM 2011
Ok.
Here's a place for it. I won't tell you my allegance (but feel free to guess heheh!!) but do hit and run tactics make any difference to overall odds and outcome over a long period of testing?
Some will argue that it does, and some will argue that mathematics proves there is no difference.
I propse this cunundrum:-
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for no longer that two seconds at a time and then take them out. I do this thirty times.
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for a whole minute, and then take them out.
On which occassion am I more likely to lose my toesies??
Be warned. This kind of practice, much like roulette, could also cost you an arm and a leg!!
I welcome your comments.
Woods
After the 2 second wiggle how long are they out of the water for ? 30 mins and the sharks may of gone :twisted:
Heheh! Quite possibly!
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for no longer then two seconds at a time and then take them out. I do this thirty times.
OR
I am in a boat at sea in shark infested water. I stick my toes in the water and wiggle them for a whole minute, and then take them out
The answer is when you take your foot out and back in thirty times won’t be the real true count. You would have to also count the times your foot hit the water so it is twice that about 30 + 30
30 times at two seconds and plus 30 every time your foot hit the water that would alert the sharks =60 Mathematical Probability would be 60 only if you continue and not wait days or years or hours or minutes
The iceman1313
Never go out on the ocean alone, there are others that can be the bait.
Look at what is happening at the table. No cost to you bank. Play after spin
If you know there are sharks what are you going to do? Feed them? or kill them?
TCD
PS. Cocktail runners. You understand this?
Excellent! This thread has become randomly existential already!
So hit and run is discounted as an illusion? A psychological con trick applied to oneself?
The humourous responses so far seem to imply this. So what should we make of those who claim to have records that provide proof that there is validation in hit and run methodology? Should we assume that these people have extremely good luck that has produced extremely improbable results? I know there are more than one here who will quietly believe this not to be true and we are all familiar with their familiars. Will they speak up here? maybe not, for they have argued and proved til they're blue in the face many times before. So what of the maths heads? What do they make of these types? Are they magic beings? What is a number to nature? She knows not of such a thing. There is no pattern to randomness the maths heads will say. A universe born from pure random. So how do they describe the moon around the earth, the earth around the sun? The beat
of each heart and the 1737 train to Sutton...? ;D
Hi My friends
I taught for many years Random Numbers aren't Random. Please get over it.Stop thinking the old school ways.
The iceman 1313
Quote from: iceman1313 on Apr 15, 01:42 PM 2011
Hi My friends
I taught for many years Random Numbers aren't Random. Please get over it.Stop thinking the old school ways.
The iceman 1313
How do you mean you taught random numbers are not random?
Who and where did you teach this for the many years you stated?
If they are not random - then what are they?
A.
The moment U stick Ur toe(s) in the water for the first time, U subject them to a shark attack.
U could carry on sticking them in for 30 years at Ur 2 seconds duration, and U are still subject to the same 'odds' of being attacked.
Its the action of putting Ur toe in, that starts the ball rolling, not how many time, how often, how long.
Same occurs with Random.
The Moment we enter 'HER' lair, wur doomed!!!!!
[reveal]link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo&feature=player_detailpage[/reveal]
Quote from: Twisteruk on Apr 15, 09:09 AM 2011
After the 2 second wiggle how long are they out of the water for ? 30 mins and the sharks may of gone :twisted:
Twister just gave you the ULTIMATE response to your question. MATHS oh what a glorious thing it is. BUT WHAT ON EARTH HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH RANDOM??
The only thing we need to find in this game called ROULETTE is something RANDOM struggles to do efficiently. With MV5 we have it. With PATTERN BREAKER/4 WE HAVE IT.
Mathematicians can't explain why random doesn't like going beyond certain points. They equally think. Things like house edge have too much impact on a players potential success with the game. THE PROBLEM. Their thinking is too one dimensional and rigid, to even begin to see the possibilities methods like THE MATRIX deliver.
I have a maths lecturer playing MV5 and shaking his head, not because he's winning. BUT BECAUSE HE can't FIGURE OUT WHY HE ISNT LOSING. Go figure that out maths devotees. HIT AND RUN *WITH A GOOD METHOD* Destroys roulette.
Keep reading Twisters response to your ? over and over.
THanks John for your response. Your methods rely on hit and run it seems, so I assume you're an advocate- your results seem testament to the fact. I thought I'd start this thread to provide a place for the dissenters in your method posts but they seem to be very absent at the mo....
hit-n-run -----yes, does make a huge difference. just check the same approaches as playing for long periods of time and short periods and long breaks and see the difference
If hit 'n run really does make a difference, it would make sense to me that playing until you are +1 is the most logical way to play. That's the ultimate hit 'n run.
If hit 'n run is the way to play, how long does the 'run' have to be? One spin? One hundred spins? One day? If you say one day, why? A change of tables? A change of dealers?
Hi Woods101,
Jumping in and out of a game of roulette doesn't guarantee success. The thing that helps to make it be a winner is one thing and one thing only:
STRIKE RATE!!!!!
If you can jump in and out of the game with profit, enough times before you have a series loss, you have a winning system. Of course this strike rate needs to hold consistant over a lot of games but strike rate is the determining factor between a winning system and one that fails.
Scooby Doo
Well,
To me, hit and run means either a single spin or quite few spins of roulette betting upon more than 2/3rd numbers and expecting that bad hits will not outdo the earnings into losses. Odds never change, be it one spin or 1000. There is no absolute hit and run strategy, which everybody would like to try. All strategies may fail sooner or later.
A hit and run strategy is suggestive of a game with a set goal, whether that be 1 unit or 100 units.
If you play to earn a preset profit and then stop, you are playing a hit and run strategy.
There is absolutely no benefit in not continuing the current session even after attaining your goal.
You could just rule off the previous outcomes, restart the game and reset the goal.
You could do this 100 times with the same stream of numbers and have 100 hit and run sessions all in a row without ever leaving the table.
Hit and run is an illusion, to be sure.
It is not an illusion, it is a very logical thing. and it is proved by practice. Is it not true that
70% of people are ahead at some moment, but then lose it? it is not true that most pro gamblers have a rule "leave when you are ahead". Is it not true that roulette is basically
unbeatable game on a long run? Is it not true that odds are against u?
what happens when you beat the roulette on short run -- the odds are still not that bad, you are NOT ON A LONG RUN. But longer you play -- odds against you grow up quickly. Well, maybe my expression is wrong and akward, but you got the idea. The shorter is your run -- the fewer odds you are facing.
and Skakus, did you really run many roulette tests? I doubt it somehow. it is so obvious, that on average you lose more when you play longer and the breaks are shorter. and vise versa.
i will give u a simple example. say u bet 2 dozens. the big chance is you will win. but
when u play like this second time, u have less chances already, third time even less...and so on.
whatever is your system losing or winning, the average results are gonna be better with
hit-n-run
"whatever is your system losing or winning, the average results are gonna be better with
hit-n-run" >>> This is a subject, I am 50/50 on. I see both sides. Lets say, you should leave shortly after making a few bucks, hit-n-run.
When is it OKAY to play again? The next day (24 hours)? What about 18 hours later, is that okay?
What about 15 hours later? WHEN is it okay to use the hit-n-run tactic again?
I also see the other side of the coin. If a method is GOOD, it should not matter how long you sit there and play.
Ken
Dear Ken,
Hit-and-run can never be good to be played in long run. For example, I suggest a game where you bet upon 10 streets and leave 2 streets randomly. Now, only if 0 or any number from those two left lines wins, you lose your bets. Otherwise, you have more than 80% chances to win those 2 units.
Such tricks can be tried for hit-n-run but in long run you should lose more by it than you can earn.
Quote from: MrJ on Apr 27, 09:15 PM 2011
"whatever is your system losing or winning, the average results are gonna be better with
hit-n-run" >>> This is a subject, I am 50/50 on. I see both sides. Lets say, you should leave shortly after making a few bucks, hit-n-run.
When is it OKAY to play again? The next day (24 hours)? What about 18 hours later, is that okay?
What about 15 hours later? WHEN is it okay to use the hit-n-run tactic again?...
Ken
The point I was making is it should be ok to play straight away. All you need to do is at the end of each game (whatever that is) act as though you just arrived at the table and start a new game.
Think about this. You have six people playing exactly the same game; player 1 wins after 20 spins then walks away (hit and run). Player 2 just happens to arrive as player 1 is leaving. Player 2 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 3 just happens to arrive as player 2 is leaving. Player 3 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 4 just happens to arrive as player 3 is leaving. Player 4 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 5 just happens to arrive as player 4 is leaving. Player 5 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 6 remained at the table for the whole 100 spins and restarted his game after each 20 spin portion.
All 5 hit and run players each won in 20 spins, but player 6 won 5 times on the trot playing exactly the same game as the first 5 players.
Leaving the table/casino then coming back whenever to start a new series of bets is the same as staying at the table and starting a new series of bets.
i think this can be proved with statitistics. but it is rather complicated. we all heard fairy tales of holy grails, but they are just fairtytales, no more than this. in reality there is no such univesal method as winning on a long run. Spin after spin after spin. for millions of spins. if u have such a method,
u can be world wide sensation and as well known as president Obama or whatever.
on the other side there are some people winning in roulette. as much as i know all of them use hit-n-run tactics.
as for Ken's question "how much is long" and "how much is short" i guess there is no universal answer. Maybe there are some methods which can be run for as much as 100 spins and wait as little as 20. i don't know about them. But there are more methods like "play for 10 or 20 spins and wait for 500 or 1000 spins", slow grinding kind of stuff, i guess. These all should be decided by tests and life experience.
all this is just my opinion, i may be wrong as well.
Quote from: Skakus on Apr 28, 12:24 AM 2011
The point I was making is it should be ok to play straight away. All you need to do is at the end of each game (whatever that is) act as though you just arrived at the table and start a new game.
Think about this. You have six people playing exactly the same game; player 1 wins after 20 spins then walks away (hit and run). Player 2 just happens to arrive as player 1 is leaving. Player 2 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 3 just happens to arrive as player 2 is leaving. Player 3 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 4 just happens to arrive as player 3 is leaving. Player 4 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 5 just happens to arrive as player 4 is leaving. Player 5 wins after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 6 remained at the table for the whole 100 spins and restarted his game after each 20 spin portion.
All 5 hit and run players each won in 20 spins, but player 6 won 5 times on the trot playing exactly the same game as the first 5 players.
Leaving the table/casino then coming back whenever to start a new series of bets is the same as staying at the table and starting a new series of bets.
Nicely put. I agree.
Well Guys,
I guess I have to add my 2-cents worth. I have been reading all of these different theories but it seems as if the point has been missed.
Since imaginary examples have been used, I will do the same. Imagine that there is a wheel similar to a roulette wheel but it has 100 pockets. In each pocket there is a white ball and in the "Zero" pocket there is a yellow ball. If you remove a ball, it is automatically replaced immediately.
Now, as the wheel spins slowly, you place a blindfold over your eyes and one-by-one you start removing the balls and place them in a bowl. Each white ball represents a Win and the Yellow Ball represents a series loss. So in this case the STRIKE RATE is 99/1. Lets also say that the yellow ball is worth 7-times more than one white ball but since the strike-rate is 99/1, a loss will not eat up all of your profit.
The idea is to draw as many white balls as you can without drawing the yellow ball. So lets say we want to win 25 units and then stop each time we play. The yellow ball can be the first ball or any other ball but by hit-and-run play, eventually you will have won more than you have lost even if you chose the yellow ball.
The idea of calculating the strike rate is so crucial to any system of play but is over-looked by most players because it takes a lot of testing to determine what it is exactly for each system. I don't see how anyone can expect to have a winning method without doing it religiously.
Best Regards,
Scooby Doo
Bazeer and Skakus.
Enough of blah-blah-blah, I created a real life example for u. you kinda live in the world of fiction roulette, I think (no offence meant).
here is real life example. I took german spins and bet the last dozen 2 ways: hit- and- run, and your way. How you can bet last dozen as "a player which just came to the game"? the same way.
if you have another idea, how you can bet the last dozen, please tell me.
maybe this example will prove who is right and who is wrong.
Hi iggiv.
I don't know how to compare your 2 charts - they are far too different in spin length.
If you post the 70+ spins from your second chart I will try and give an example of what I mean by continuous play = hit and run.
:)
i won't do it sorry. consider yourself right. All u have to do is to behave like one that just came to the table and u gonna win forever. Gotcha. u r right. my mistake. And all those people which say "greediness kills you in casino", they are also wrong. Yes, sure, u pretend that u just came to play and u gonna win as much as u want
Basically from what u r saying the conclusion is simple. Go eat, go to a washroom, go to sleep, come back, play till u r tired, go to take your rest again, come back, and in a few days u gonna easily empty the casino, because u r capable to win non-stop. so easy done. congratulations.
u must be a rich guy by now.
Sorry iggiv,
I believe you have misunderstood my point.
You see the same senario equally applies for losing.
Think about this.
You have six people playing exactly the same game; player 1 loses after 20 spins then walks away (hit and run). Player 2 just happens to arrive as player 1 is leaving. Player 2 loses after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 3 just happens to arrive as player 2 is leaving. Player 3 loses after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 4 just happens to arrive as player 3 is leaving. Player 4 loses after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 5 just happens to arrive as player 4 is leaving. Player 5 loses after 20 spins and walks away (hit and run). Player 6 remained at the table for the whole 100 spins and restarted his game after each 20 spin portion.
All 5 hit and run players each lost in 20 spins, but player 6 lost 5 times on the trot playing exactly the same game as the first 5 players.
Leaving the table/casino then coming back whenever to start a new series of bets is the same as staying at the table and starting a new series of bets.
Quote from: iggiv on Apr 28, 06:25 PM 2011
Bazeer and Skakus.
Enough of blah-blah-blah, I created a real life example for u. you kinda live in the world of fiction
I better not comment.
You don't understand the very nature of roulette. period. you just have some weird artificial concept in your mind, which is not working in real life. Roulette (randomness) is balancing itself. Whatever wins will lose soon. Well, it may work for some period of time of course, but as exception, not as a rule. As a rule it is gonna lose soon. That's why player which is left and come back has more chances to win again than a player which is stubborn at sit hours at the table. And i will tell u something more. Roulette randomness is such, that balancing is more working for killing the winning on a long run than helping to recover losses. If u run tests and analyze this u will just pay attention. Going down with more and more spins is A TYPICAL scenario for mechanical systems. Going up and up and up and up or going down then recover and going down then again recover to the same level is possible but less typical for roulette behaviour. Casinos know this and use this advantage very well.
that's why they almost always in profit.
I showed you a small example. Hit and run may not work, and you are right about it, it may lose as well. But it has much more chances to win than sitting at the table. What happened at 70 spins -- was TYPICAL. what happened at hit-run, was one of the possible scenarios. of course it could be all 3 losing sessions, it could be 2 winning and 1 losing session, could be 2 losing and 1 winning. Nothing is guaranteed about winning at hit-run. But what is almost guaranteed is LOSING on longer runs. And typically if hit-run if it doesn't win, it still will lose much less than long sessions. Say 5 days you sit everyday at the table for 100 spins (one scenario) and you hit and run for 5 days (playing a few spins, then waiting for a 200 or 300 or even 500 or 1000 spins). Typically hit-run will much more successful. at least if it doesn't win -- it will lose less. And sitting for 100 spins for 5 days will almost certainly be a disaster.
of course you can be lucky, but it won't be TYPICAL.
i am sure you did not run many tests. you did not analyze them. if you did, you wouldn't say that. you probably found some couple of flukes, and decided that this is gonna be a law. you could not be more wrong than this.
and whatever you invented about player 1, player 2, player3, it is just your idea but not a reflection of reality. Randomness is not like this.
Quote from: Bazeegar on Apr 28, 11:36 PM 2011
I better not comment.
it was not intended as a personal assault, rather as my evaluation of your understanding the roulette nature. Sorry if i sounded rude.
.
Quote from: iggiv on Apr 28, 11:43 PM 2011
it was not intended as a personal assault, rather as my evaluation of your understanding the roulette nature. Sorry if I sounded rude.
Hi Iggiv
I have studied roulette and I
actually play in land-based casinos. I may not be as regular in the casino as you, but definitely I am not new or naive. I have studied roulette enough to form opinion about certain things and I agree to what Skakus stated. Also, I am entitled to express my opinion on this board.
Though I do not have to prove myself, I am attaching my betting history at a land-based casino for your perusal so that you will know that I am not talking fibs. This was roulette - even chance. I have stopped playing roulette as I play even chance and found that it is better to play Baccarat at -1.06% house edge than roulette at -2.70%. The play is for approximately 6 months and I do trend/variance betting. It's all flat betting. Had I played Baccarat the results would have been better as there were 39 zeros wherein I lost.
In the legend PB means placed bets. I placed ~ 1550 bets and was ~ +57 units. Till now, I atrribute these results to luck as my Z score is less than 3. If I could get z score consistently above 3 (>1000 bets) then I will consider that my betting strategy is working.
I will request the starter of this thread to remove this post once iggiv has read this so that the thread remains relevant and, iggiv, nothing personal about what I have written.
Bazee
Quote from: iggiv on Apr 28, 09:40 PM 2011
I won't do it sorry...
Pity, it could have been very constructive and someone might have learned something.
@ bazeegar,
Your Z score might not be huge, but it does appear to be steadily going up, which is good.
Bazeer and Skakus, sorry again if i made it look like i was against expressing your opinions or something like that.
and i don't claim myself to be a super roulette hero, blah-blah-blah. I am just saying things which are commonly aknowledged in a roulette world. no more than this.
what u r guys saying is like either roulette is beatable by the same method on a long run or
that it doesn't matter how -- but u don't stand a chance, be it short runs or long run.
Bazeer, individual case could of course make it look like u r right. i have never said it is impossible at all that u won't win on longer runs. u can be lucky. (or u can have some super method, which most don't know about).
i am talking what typically happens to roulette on a long run with well know methods. Sorry if i made myself looking arrogant or superior or something like this. But this is a common sense and common knowledge and u try to argue this.
well, we made our points, so here we go. :)
Quote from: woods101 on Apr 26, 06:13 PM 2011
THanks John for your response. Your methods rely on hit and run it seems, so I assume you're an advocate- your results seem testament to the fact. I thought I'd start this thread to provide a place for the dissenters in your method posts but they seem to be very absent at the mo....
Woods I suppose they do. The only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, is my OVERALL STRIKERATE is higher a lot HIGHER playing shorter broken up sessions. As opposed to long drawn out ones.
It comes down to WHEN YOU ENTER THE CYCLE. Example. I played Scoobies excellent DIVIDE AND CONQUER last week in a land casino. When I commenced playing I won the first game. Then lost the second game. Now I know from the 800 games I had already played. This is when a nice winning streak is likely to occur. So instead of snatching a couple of wins and recouping my 7 point loss. I played the next three games at a higher level. Then dropped down to level one and played on.
After winning 22 times in a row I quit, as the longest winning streak I have in my records is 26. A loss finally occurred in game 25. I wasn't there. Ended play for the night with some tidy profit. You have to know what is LIKELY to occur with your method, and this can only happen through testing it. With my PATTERN BREAKER concept. I have won 112 times in a row by playing short sessions. Whenever I have recorded 500 plus consecutive spins, no winning streak has gone beyond 24 in a row. So there you go.
What never ceases to amaze me is how the maths boys never talk about randoms weaknesses. They go on and on about methods that fall flat against the layout. While avoiding the real crux of the argument. PATIENCE is the lacking ingredient of success in this game. A player must first defeat their own lack of this precious attribute before they can defeat this game. When I first began playing roulette I lost just like most do because I neither had the methods nor the patience to do anything but lose.
15 years later that is a distant memory, and I am trying to help others reach a similar level. But They have to find it in themselves to move forward. Whenever I have encountered a negative player who has sided with the maths fraternity over Roulettes supposed invincibility. I find the same human blueprint. A person of above average intelligence who has fallen for the lie because they themselves couldnt marry a strong method with the necessary patience to be successful longterm.
So instead of risking their ego and admitting they missed something/lacked something. Its easier to go with the flow and perpetuate the flawed myth. Right now I have a maths lecturer bowing to MATRIX VERTICAL 5. He simply cannot explain why it works, but he has conceded it WORKS. AND SO WILL ANYOTHER WORSHIPPER OF THE NUMBERS ONCE THEY LEAVE THEIR FRAGILE EGO at home and see it for themselves.
So hit and run overall has brought me great success, and I advocate it married to a method that is already STRONG. The winning streaks you enjoy can be RIDICULOUS. I yet to update my MATRIX VERTICAL 5 results but they are just maintaining solid success. MATRIX VERTICAL 5 is a n achilles heel for roulette it really is.
"The only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, is my OVERALL STRIKERATE is higher a lot HIGHER playing shorter broken up sessions. As opposed to long drawn out ones."
that's what most of pros playing "mechanical" methods know
Hi John,
thanks for your detailed response. Wise words. Thank you.
Iggiv, I take it that you are an advocate of John's words above then?
Woods
Quote from: woods101 on May 09, 08:38 PM 2011
Hi John,
thanks for your detailed response. Wise words. Thank you.
Iggiv, I take it that you are an advocate of John's words above then?
Woods
yes, 100%.
one successful player i know even put it that way: "a real pro has always one of his eyes looking at the door". something like that. this is very important in gambling -- to quit before u get in trouble.
but VB and bias guys are a total different story as much as i know. For them it is "more you play -- more u win".
I have to agree with the hit and run guys. The longer you play the more vulnerable you become to the house edge. In my opinion the pay outs combined with zero and double zero will kill even the best strategy in the long run. Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me.
"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> Thats fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on May 09, 10:24 PM 2011
"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> that's fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?
Ken
this is all individual, every method is different
Quote from: MrJ on May 09, 10:24 PM 2011
"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> that's fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?
Ken
I’ll wait 5 minutes and then go back. Just for the record, I play mostly RNG because the table minimums are too high. A hit and run strategy works the best for me because I don’t have the bankroll to support long term sessions. The inevitable draw down would wipe me out. My sessions end with either a small profit or a small loss.
Quote from: iggiv on May 09, 08:40 PM 2011
yes, 100%.
one successful player I know even put it that way: "a real pro has always one of his eyes looking at the door". something like that. this is very important in gambling -- to quit before you get in trouble.
but VB and bias guys are a total different story as much as I know. For them it is "more you play -- more you win".
Exactly prevention is better than cure. I understand the temptation to outstay your welcome hoping luck is on your side, but IT ISNT LIKELY TO BE. If you already know the average strikerate of your method, you know with smart controlled play you will show a profit. And lots of little pockets of profit add up
Overtime you will increase the unit value of each win. One win of ten units is far more achievable than 10 wins of one unit. Keep these things in mind less really is more longterm.
A few more posts here would be helpful!
link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/consistently-profitable-hit%27n%27run-strategies-and-methods/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/consistently-profitable-hit%27n%27run-strategies-and-methods/)
Ok. Thanks to everyone for their input on this topic so far. This post was originally created as a response to certain maths heads jumping all over one of JLs methods when
first posted a while back. It's now turning into an interesting debate and source of worthwhile information. I will always take note of advice given by those that have put a lot of time, practice, experience and not to mention, money into the exploration of randomness. I don't doubt that each persons results are testament to the importance of hit and run, despite the fact that it contradicts mathematical odds. My own limiited testing shows this to be the case. This begs me to ask this question, why do you guys think this is? Do you have a personal analogy that would describe why this is the case or is just an accepted phenomenon and not questioned?
Thanks again to all so far.
Woods
p.s @ esoito - why not take a look at my 'misery' post under notepad section as a possible contender. Chrisbis takes it and runs with it. Both provide short term positives.
Yep. Looked at that.
What do others think? A possible contender?
Quote from: Johnlegend on May 10, 09:52 AM 2011
Exactly prevention is better than cure. I understand the temptation to outstay your welcome hoping luck is on your side, but IT ISNT LIKELY TO BE. If you already know the average strikerate of your method, you know with smart controlled play you will show a profit. And lots of little pockets of profit add up
Overtime you will increase the unit value of each win. One win of ten units is far more achievable than 10 wins of one unit. Keep these things in mind less really is more longterm.
yes, i agree 100%