Ok, I bet my head is going to ge shot off because of this name (being the joker I am  ) but I'm going to go ahead anyway.

Ok, first up, BIG thanks     to everyone in this forum. I really think that creative thinking inspires more creative thinking, and there is plenty of that in here. So once again THANK YOU!

Now down to the system. This is both for live and RNG (couple of test only on live) - but I'm sure that it will work fine on both. The reason for this, I'll explain.

Somewhere on this forum (I think it was JL, who said it) something in the line off....the more variables you throw at "it" the tougher time it will have beating it.

So taken right from the roulette table's layout - I created a matrix as per the excel attachment. The reason why I think this can be magic:

1. 6 Possible betting chances

2. 12 spins in between each bet cycle.

3. MAX of 12 step progession IF you played 2 cycles to try and catch up.

4. 7 reasons short of 37 numbers on a Roulette board 

Ok, I don't really have progression worked out, but truly think that this would be the ultimate EC player. Nice and relaxed, and yet should yield + outcomes.

I welcome any constructive criticism, and if someone can perhaps assist in possible progressions.

Regards,
Mauricio

Will you explain some more how you play this?

Thanks.

Sure,

First question - did you download the attached Excel spreadsheet?

if you did, carry on reading  otherwise download it, have a look at it and then read on.

You track 6 numbers. You right their corresponding values in terms of HIGH/LOW - ODD/EVEN - RED/BLACK in a horizontal line but in the sequence I have it in the spreadsheet. SO you start with H/L - E/O - R/B - R/B E/O - H/L

Then you track 12 more spins. But you don't HAVE to write them down.

Then you will be betting the next 6 spins, after that 12, NOT to become the same sequence as the initial 6 numbers.

Hope this helps. If you still don't understand, I'll gladly post another example.

Regards,
Mauricio

Thanks. All clear now.

   No comments?

I would love for it, is someone could perhaps throw this into a simulator and just see if it is useless or not?

This is very similar to JohnLegend's Pattern 4 by your description (on this thread).

Could you put the doc into an older format? (xls?) thanks

I'm thinking a standard martingale: 1,2,4,8,16,32 should suffice.

Quote from: Maui13 on Jun 08, 01:52 AM 2011
  No comments?

I would love for it, is someone could perhaps throw this into a simulator and just see if it is useless or not?

-----------------

i don't trust RNGs.....i don't think they try to decode anything. I think they just look at your profit if you win the bet and if its too high of a % compared to your BR, they give you a losing spin...moreso if you're playing a negative progression...

well lets see how you do long term... you might prove me wrong

vundarosa

Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Jun 08, 02:08 AM 2011
This is very similar to JohnLegend's Pattern 4 by your description (on this thread).

Could you put the doc into an older format? (xls?) thanks

I'm thinking a standard martingale: 1,2,4,8,16,32 should suffice.

I'm not in office now, but will do so once I get back in.

@ Vundarosa,

I agree with you, and you're right! BUT I'll give it a try anyway.
Will post results.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,
Mauricio

@ Proofreader

Here you are mate... xls   

Regards,
Mauricio

Here are some tests of RNG Buster

I like all these betting against the wheel strategies, they really are thginking outside the box, I would never have thought of anything like these.  Attacking random with random, bring it on!

good thread maui. have you tried it. it works you know. but the progression is the key.

Im with Halba - it dosnt work. Short term you will see gains then you will lose it all - thats with a martingale prog. Change the progression and it could work - ive tried and failed with code 2, code 4, code 6, code 8 even code 10 on all E/C's....then I tried dozens, columns, streets....and they all failed and took me right back to the start.

Each one just takes longer to fail as the chances of it fail grow.

They could all work, but not with a martingale.