The SURROUND system

[jarabo002]

Juiced,

What software is RX.
I see everyone talking about it but don't have a clue

RX = Roulette Xtreme


Basically, it is a software to test roulette systems, but has other uses.

[Stepkevh]

aaah okay thx

its not for free i suppose

[Ralph]

I have trying to download RX, but the security programs warn me to start it.

[Turner]

Juiced,

What software is RX.
I see everyone talking about it but don't have a clue

Its a roulette sim. Basically u can download a free trial and get 40 or so tries.its cheap to buy..£18. U can download real spins and practice or run systems. Www.uxsoftware.com

[Master_of_pockets]

Ralph changing bet selections can t help in any system.(Gambling fallacy)
The point is to bet the most numbers according the anomalies of the table.

[Ralph]

If you not can make  GF useful, its very boring to play, and you will not win more in any case.

Anomalies  can not be predicted without use of GF,

Statistical methods are not winners, history lessons like GF.

[Master_of_pockets]

Ok if you can turn the GF into a winning method then be my guest.

[Shadowman]

MOP

thanks for your response,  no problem re screen shot.  I know that it loses as any other bet selection, however i was intrigued by the fact that you said that is the "safest" of your trials with different selections.

I was wondering if you can elaborate on this aspect eg.  were there less peaks and troughs or did it just lose at a slower rate or........ I am just trying to establish as to why it would be a "safer" option as I would have thought that there would have been no difference over 50 000 spins, however perhaps you are onto something, and if you are then I am sure that something can come from it.

I also tested your original method manually,  with my spins it seemed to be up and down like a whores drawers,  but followed a similar graph to the one that you showed.


Mike

[Ralph]

Ok if you can turn the GF into a winning method then be my guest.

All methods are GF, they try to find something "due".

[Master_of_pockets]

I agree

[vladir]

Have you tried a positive progression aproach when winning?

[Master_of_pockets]

no but in 8 years of recearch i have confirmed thai if a system is losing with a negative prog then its also losing with a positive.

the 2nd version of the method unfortunalely didn t work...Sam continue playng this one if u like

[jarabo002]

Is there two versions?


I only see one of them, in the first post.




Anyway I think its a smart and a very solid method. If we could set up in betting or a stop-loss (in my test 300 units is pretty good), you could get away with this system.

[Master_of_pockets]

thanks jarabo...we need more testing.

[jarabo002]

...also 30 units of máximum bet in even chances, or 29 in the third dozen.