Tendency

[GLC]

In my study of roulette, I have focused on even chance bets because you get quicker feedback regarding how a method is working.  If a system will work on an even chance, I believe it will work on dozens, lines, streets etc….    It just takes longer for the results to materialize because of the payout odds.  (Playing all three even chances at the same time is the exception to this since the other bet locations don’t have multiple options.  The closest would be dozens and columns.)

I have played around with progressions quite a bit because I know they can give you time to recover in a bad situation.  Progressions also make recovery quicker if you start out with a big draw down because you go into the hole with smaller bets than you climb out with.  I used to think that each system had a progression that was ideally suited to it, but now I feel it’s more a matter of bankroll and playing style than an exact progression.

It has been shown by everyone touting a progression that given a certain series of spins that result in a loss if flat bet, can result in a win if a progression is used.  However, progressions just mask the fact that a system is a losing system until the streak from hell shows up and we go  bust.  The larger our bankroll, the rarer this event will be.  In some cases, with a little luck and a really large bankroll, it may not happen to you in your lifetime.  But I wouldn’t count on it.  It will happen to most who play and it may even happen to some the first time they play the system.

No system is foolproof because there are always spins that will cause the system to lose.  Random being random, eventually we will get enough of those losing spins close enough together to cause our system to fail.  I usually like to pick the next spin result that will cause a system to fail just so I know what a failing series of spins look like.  Invariably the failing spins look just like any series of spin results.  That's the scary part.

I haven’t looked into computer aided methods since I'm a man of moderate means and can't imagine investing that much money and still having to work my butt off to get it back with profit.  Visual Ballistics seems to have merit, but I think VB takes some serious practice and there are probably some of us who may not be able to master the mechanics of it. 

Our late friend Ralph, and many of you, have rightly stated that roulette is a very, very difficult game to win at consistently.  No roulette system is guaranteed to win, but what else do we have except to randomly scatter chips around the table? 

All of the above is an introduction to this new attempt at beating this maddening game.  The system is built of components of other systems and ideas that are posted around on the forum.  But then what system isn’t?

The basic fallacy that it’s built on is the fallacy of something being “due”.  I am changing the expectation of something being “due” to something being “more likely” or “tending toward”. 

If we have 10 spins and they’re all Red, that’s uncommon, but not impossible.  It borders on impossible that the next 10 spins will also be Red.  I know that it has happened.  But it is very rare to have 20 Reds in a row.  The smaller the number of events, the more common big percentage deviations are.  The larger the number of events, the less common big percentage deviations are.  So, in 10 spins we can have 10 Reds but in 100 spins we can’t have 100 Reds.  In 100 spins we can have 30 Reds and 70 Blacks, but in 4,000 spins this ratio becomes all but impossible.  In 4,000,000 spins nobody has seen anything even close to it.

Our main obstacle is that this imbalance can continue for a very long time.  For much longer than we can afford to chase it.  But, my premise is that big deviations are tending toward correction more than they are tending toward staying the same or going to an even bigger deviation. 

This systems attempts to exploit this tendency. 

First, we pick how long we want a session to last.  I like the following. 

The minimum attack will be 108 spins.  We divide our spins into thirds, that’s 36â€"36â€"36.  We track all 3 of the even chance bets for 36 spins.  At the end of 36 spins, if we have an imbalance in one of the even chances of at least 12 to 24, we have a trigger.  That means one of the even chances has only hit 33% of the time, instead of 50% of the time (not counting zero).  If we have two even chances that meet the criteria, pick the one with the fewest hits.

We will bet that this even chance will start to catch up in the next 72 spins.  We know that in order for it to catch up, it must hit in streaks.  If it alternates 1 to 1 with the other even chance, it will not catch up.  That means that we bet for it to hit two or more times in a row.  If we’re betting for Red to catch up to Black, we wait for a Red to hit and then we bet for Red to hit again.   Once a Red spins, we continue to bet for Red until we lose to a Black.  We flat bet until we are either +5 units or -10 units or until we've played all 72 spins.

Continue to keep track of the number of hits for all 6 even chances while you’re playing the 72 spins so you will be ready to start again sooner once you’ve ended the  attack.

As with all systems, they can be tweaked to suit your playing style.  Some possibilities for this one is to make the session longer than 108 spins.  If there’s any merit in my system at all, the longer the session, the greater our chance of winning should be.  You’d probably have to change the win and loss targets to be more realistic.

Another change could be the size of the deviation required before an attack is triggered.  33% comes up often enough so you're not tracking your life away.

The last one I’ll venture is a mild progression.  Not within the attack, but from one attack to another.  The progression I prefer, if I use one, is the +1, -1 negative progression.  I only use it between attacks.  I never change my bet size during the 72 spins.  It does require a larger bankroll.

This is a tough system to test on paper.  If you use a flat bet, you should be able to play it without too much financial risk. 

And, always use good money management rules when gambling.

GLC

[amk]

Thank goodness your still in the game GLC.

[GLC]

Thank goodness your still in the game GLC.

I still have to limit my time investment in the forum.  But it's like TwoCat said.  Forum members never die, they just start to smell like they did.  Or something like that.

[Azim]

In my study of roulette, I have focused on even chance bets because you get quicker feedback regarding how a method is working.  If a system will work on an even chance, I believe it will work on dozens, lines, streets etc….    It just takes longer for the results to materialize because of the payout odds.  (Playing all three even chances at the same time is the exception to this since the other bet locations don’t have multiple options.  The closest would be dozens and columns.)

I have played around with progressions quite a bit because I know they can give you time to recover in a bad situation.  Progressions also make recovery quicker if you start out with a big draw down because you go into the hole with smaller bets than you climb out with.  I used to think that each system had a progression that was ideally suited to it, but now I feel it’s more a matter of bankroll and playing style than an exact progression.

It has been shown by everyone touting a progression that given a certain series of spins that result in a loss if flat bet, can result in a win if a progression is used.  However, progressions just mask the fact that a system is a losing system until the streak from hell shows up and we go  bust.  The larger our bankroll, the rarer this event will be.  In some cases, with a little luck and a really large bankroll, it may not happen to you in your lifetime.  But I wouldn’t count on it.  It will happen to most who play and it may even happen to some the first time they play the system.

No system is foolproof because there are always spins that will cause the system to lose.  Random being random, eventually we will get enough of those losing spins close enough together to cause our system to fail.  I usually like to pick the next spin result that will cause a system to fail just so I know what a failing series of spins look like.  Invariably the failing spins look just like any series of spin results.  That's the scary part.

I haven’t looked into computer aided methods since I'm a man of moderate means and can't imagine investing that much money and still having to work my butt off to get it back with profit.  Visual Ballistics seems to have merit, but I think VB takes some serious practice and there are probably some of us who may not be able to master the mechanics of it. 

Our late friend Ralph, and many of you, have rightly stated that roulette is a very, very difficult game to win at consistently.  No roulette system is guaranteed to win, but what else do we have except to randomly scatter chips around the table? 

All of the above is an introduction to this new attempt at beating this maddening game.  The system is built of components of other systems and ideas that are posted around on the forum.  But then what system isn’t?

The basic fallacy that it’s built on is the fallacy of something being “due”.  I am changing the expectation of something being “due” to something being “more likely” or “tending toward”. 

If we have 10 spins and they’re all Red, that’s uncommon, but not impossible.  It borders on impossible that the next 10 spins will also be Red.  I know that it has happened.  But it is very rare to have 20 Reds in a row.  The smaller the number of events, the more common big percentage deviations are.  The larger the number of events, the less common big percentage deviations are.  So, in 10 spins we can have 10 Reds but in 100 spins we can’t have 100 Reds.  In 100 spins we can have 30 Reds and 70 Blacks, but in 4,000 spins this ratio becomes all but impossible.  In 4,000,000 spins nobody has seen anything even close to it.

Our main obstacle is that this imbalance can continue for a very long time.  For much longer than we can afford to chase it.  But, my premise is that big deviations are tending toward correction more than they are tending toward staying the same or going to an even bigger deviation. 

This systems attempts to exploit this tendency. 

First, we pick how long we want a session to last.  I like the following. 

The minimum attack will be 108 spins.  We divide our spins into thirds, that’s 36â€"36â€"36.  We track all 3 of the even chance bets for 36 spins.  At the end of 36 spins, if we have an imbalance in one of the even chances of at least 12 to 24, we have a trigger.  That means one of the even chances has only hit 33% of the time, instead of 50% of the time (not counting zero).  If we have two even chances that meet the criteria, pick the one with the fewest hits.

We will bet that this even chance will start to catch up in the next 72 spins.  We know that in order for it to catch up, it must hit in streaks.  If it alternates 1 to 1 with the other even chance, it will not catch up.  That means that we bet for it to hit two or more times in a row.  If we’re betting for Red to catch up to Black, we wait for a Red to hit and then we bet for Red to hit again.   Once a Red spins, we continue to bet for Red until we lose to a Black.  We flat bet until we are either +5 units or -10 units or until we've played all 72 spins.

Continue to keep track of the number of hits for all 6 even chances while you’re playing the 72 spins so you will be ready to start again sooner once you’ve ended the  attack.

As with all systems, they can be tweaked to suit your playing style.  Some possibilities for this one is to make the session longer than 108 spins.  If there’s any merit in my system at all, the longer the session, the greater our chance of winning should be.  You’d probably have to change the win and loss targets to be more realistic.

Another change could be the size of the deviation required before an attack is triggered.  33% comes up often enough so you're not tracking your life away.

The last one I’ll venture is a mild progression.  Not within the attack, but from one attack to another.  The progression I prefer, if I use one, is the +1, -1 negative progression.  I only use it between attacks.  I never change my bet size during the 72 spins.  It does require a larger bankroll.

This is a tough system to test on paper.  If you use a flat bet, you should be able to play it without too much financial risk. 

And, always use good money management rules when gambling.

GLC

NOT TRYING TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM WHAT YOU SAYING.

Not trying to be negative about what you describing with method/system in anyway form or shape.

What I have noticed with that particular issue, I say noticed because I did the same for other systems. I have been keeping track of spins in a file.

I have let a bot play for real money on an even chance in order to understand what randomness is all about from an online casino's software reliability. Here is my finding on that:

I start with spin 1.. Now remember my spin 1 could be someone else's spin 36.  What I have noticed is in order to really find the run away even chance, you have to track at least minimum 100 spins and be ready to play next 100. The last 100 could be a result of run away red.. and When you join the table Black is catching up. What if now it's Black's turn to run away? I hope you all understand what I am trying to say. We start playing RED only to say the casino's are cheating on us.

That's all i have to say on the tracking part..

[GLC]

Your point is well taken Azim.  Track 100 spins then play  100 spins.  Why not if you have the time?

Like I said.  It's only a system based on concepts.  Tweaking is encouraged!

GLC

[warrior]

Play in real casino they don't cheat.

[Asxetos]

If we see that in let s say 36 spins reds are a lot less than the blacks maybe this happened because in the previous 36 spins reds were a lot more...so the ballance has already happened but in our case we think that an imbalance just came.
In a few words by tracking previous spins to find imbalances isn t correct because we never know how much to track in order to have a REAL imbalance.
And this is why all the systems based on this consept are losing so many years. 

These kind of systems are old farts mate...how come you hadn t realised that yet?They are all over the forums and tested.
You didn t add anything new on them.
You aren t new on forums so you should know that by now.

Anyway...IF there can be a way for winning this game is with the exactly the opposite way of what you are looking for.I mean repeaters and if you think hard...you will understand why.

[GLC]

These kind of systems are old farts mate...how come you hadn t realised that yet?They are all over the forums and tested.
You didn t add anything new on them.
You aren t new on forums so you should know that by now.

To begin with, mate, statements like the above are condescending and are usually made by young bucks full of piss and vinegar who haven't lived long enough to learn to be respectful.  They usually think they have some special knowledge of the game that gives them the right to surf the posts making comments that are an attempt at showing how intelligent they are by belittling the poster.

Anyway...IF there can be a way for winning this game is with the exactly the opposite way of what you are looking for.I mean repeaters and if you think hard...you will understand why.

This statement isn't helpful either.  If you have some heretofore, undiscovered knowledge about roulette, share it with the forum.  We'll decide how valuable it is. 

Why do you think repeaters have an advantage over sleepers?

From my experience there are more repeater systems than sleeper systems and none of them beat the game of roulette. 

I post systems that are controlled methods of playing the game.  To me, it makes playing more interesting than just scattering chips all over the table.  I have a friend who uses the hunch method of chip placement and I'm kicking his butt playing my silly roulette systems.

A word of advice: try being a little less condescending and more constructive in your comments.  We'll all be appreciative.

[Asxetos]

By using big letters isn t making you look smarter but the opposite.

[Nickmsi]

Hi George . . .
Here's something interesting.

Over the years, I have done a lot of testing on this type of bet selection.

Asxetos said "Anyway...IF there can be a way for winning this game is with the exactly the opposite way of what you are looking for.I mean repeaters and if you think hard...you will understand why."

The concept you are referring to is that when there is a deviation one would expect the tendency is that the sleeping or less dominant would start to wake up,  show up or is due.  Let's not get into the Gambler's Fallacy at this time.

What Asxetos may be referring to is the Arcsine Distribution of numbers (I am not good with math but I picked this up from Beretta a while back),  which basically says that when there is a deviation, the deviation tends to remain dominant.  In other words, the repeater is more like to win than the sleeper or less dominant.

I put our Excelbot to test both of these theories.  I used the identical settings for a 36 spin tracking of all 3 EC deviations.

The 40,000 spin results are attached for each, the Due Distribution (your theory) and the Arcsine Distribution.

As you can see, both lose but the Arscine Distrubtion loses less.  Now if you put a progression on the Arcsine will it more likely become a winner??

Just some food for thought and glad to see you posting again.

Cheers
Nick

[Nickmsi]

Looks like only the Arcsine results were attached.

Here is the Due Results

Nick

[Azim]

If we see that in let s say 36 spins reds are a lot less than the blacks maybe this happened because in the previous 36 spins reds were a lot more...so the ballance has already happened but in our case we think that an imbalance just came.
In a few words by tracking previous spins to find imbalances isn t correct because we never know how much to track in order to have a REAL imbalance.
And this is why all the systems based on this consept are losing so many years.

These kind of systems are old farts mate...how come you hadn t realised that yet?They are all over the forums and tested.
You didn t add anything new on them.
You aren t new on forums so you should know that by now.

Anyway...IF there can be a way for winning this game is with the exactly the opposite way of what you are looking for.I mean repeaters and if you think hard...you will understand why.

Was it not you who said, why will there be a winning system on forums.
I now ask you since you claim to be are a researcher, why are you looking for systems from a public forum?
In other words from where I am standing and reading your words I come to a conclusion that you are a LOSER RESEARCHER.
If you had any researching brains you would have thought of what you are posting and re-read it again.

[Asxetos]

We are all "LOSERs RESEARCHERs" here (and everywere on planet) because we haven t found the winning system that will make us steady money from the game.
A least I am not recycling LOSING CONSEPTS...

"""What Asxetos may be referring to is the Arcsine Distribution of numbers (I am not good with math but I picked this up from Beretta a while back),  which basically says that when there is a deviation, the deviation tends to remain dominant.  In other words, the repeater is more like to win than the sleeper or less dominant."""

And yes this is what I am referring to.

[Azim]

We are all "LOSERs RESEARCHERs" here (and everywere on planet) because we haven t found the winning system that will make us steady money from the game.
A least I am not recycling LOSING CONSEPTS...[/color]

"""What Asxetos may be referring to is the Arcsine Distribution of numbers (I am not good with math but I picked this up from Beretta a while back),  which basically says that when there is a deviation, the deviation tends to remain dominant.  In other words, the repeater is more like to win than the sleeper or less dominant."""

And yes this is what I am referring to.

Not offending but the truth hurts,  PEOPLE WANT EASY SYSTEMS/METHODS  or they want it on a platter so they can reap rewards.  NOT all systems are like that.

Work hard and master the game and you will have a winning system from within you.
Working hard and  practicing will make you understand what the numbers are doing to you.

[Jeromin]

To understand why arcsine distribution is irrelevant, one needs to differentiate short term, medium term and long term in Roulette: three very different creatures.
These things become apparent to the experienced player who has sat for many hours of continuous patient play in front of the wheel. This is a medium term system and a very good one at that, as one would expect from it's creator.
Personally, when facing a 1/3 to 2/3 EC deviation, I would not wait for this or that to appear: seems too much like pattern betting thinking that is perhaps not called for here. I'd just go confidently with the correction. A matter of taste. Otherwise, very balanced and well thought out.

Jeromin