Any systems that cover the entire board including 0?

[nottophammer]

Falkor asks the above, well dont reply 5 make +5 units, I know and you all know it would eventually hit a loseing run, but it does what was asked

[psimoes]

Well, if zero hits on spin #4 instead of nr.34, return is 35 units, when 61 units were already spent. Doesn´t that kind of defeat the point of betting on zero?

[nottophammer]

no as in reply2 said if stake goes above return add to mr green who would return 70 +your 2,
Anyway it was just 2 show it would work for 99.99%  that .01% would catch you sometime. Just now in corals  won £11.00 in under 30 mins as there warning never showed, playing granpa way on wheel layout not like method says use mat, heres the numbers  psimoes () the group
27(2)
19-2
18- 1
14-1
16-1
16-1
20-2
10-1
35-2
33-2

27-2
7-1
23-2
33-2
35-2
3-1
33-2
14-1
1-1
31-2

22-2
4-1
5-1
32-2
18-1
22-2
15-1
12-1
28-2

ther you go doubling up was okay  psimoes

[nottophammer]

see you all later of to upton park
COYI

[psimoes]

no as in reply2 said if stake goes above return add to mr green who would return 70 +your 2,
[...]

Of course, but then the amount wagered on zero starts to rise really fast...

Plus, on spin #1 you don´t need to bet 3+3 on the Ecs, just 1u on zero will be enough. If zero hits by first spin profit is 35 against 29u. Same -1 in case of a loss. Then on spin #2 you´ll bet 0+3+1 and so forth. Same 4 units lost or +2 right away, or 32u profit against 25...

[psimoes]

One more thing: when you bet on both opposing even chances (which is the same as covering the entire board), you will gain or lose the difference between them. If there are 6 chips on red and 3 chips on black, if red hits you win the difference (3 chips); if black hits you lose the difference). If an equal number of chips is placed on each EC, you lose nothing and win nothing, because there is no difference. So any number of chips common to both chances is superfluous. You just place the difference and leave the other chance unbet.  Instead of 6+3, bet 3+nothing. Instead of 12+3, bet 9+nothing. Results will be the same whether win or lose.

Now betting on zero in this much more efficient situation starts to make as much sense as betting on any other number that corresponds to the EC you didn't bet on. Say you bet 3 chips on red and no chip on black. Zero has as much chance to cause damage as all the black numbers: 1/19. By this time, betting for insurance on zero has the same effect as betting on #2, #10, #26, etc.

It's like when you see someone betting on dozens one and two and on zero for insurance. In that case why on zero and not on any other number from 25 to 36?

[vladir]

If we cover numbers 1 thru 35 with 1 unit and we leave number 36 and the zero uncovered.  What will the outcome be if we were to make this bet for the next 37 spins and each number hit exactly once starting with the zero and ending with #36?

On the zero you would lose 35 units which equals -35 units.
On numbers 1 thru 35 we would win 1 unit each which equals +35 units.
On number 36 you would lose 35 units which equals -35 units.
That means we net -35 units playing this bet method.

If we only bet 1 unit on 1 number for our 37 spins, what would be the outcome if every number hits exactly once in the next 37 spins?

On 35 of the numbers we would lose 1 unit which equals -35 units.
On the covered number we would win 35 units which equals +35 units.
On the uncovered zero we would lose 1 unit which equals -1 units.
That means we net -1 unit with this bet method.

I've asked this before and I ask it again.  How can we play multiple numbers knowing that the zero will have such devastating results on a hit?

I am not a math guy so there may be something wrong with my logic.  If so, can someone please point out my error?  If I'm right, how can we entertain the idea of betting more than 1 number at a time?

GLC

Im no math guy either, but many times I came to the conclusion that bettng less numbers is better.So you are on the rigth track here in my opinion.

[iggiv]

Anyone knows of any systems that cover 2 boards together -- double zero and zero roulette? And also a couple of baccarah and black jack tables?

I think those questions should be in a Humour section what do you think 

[psimoes]

I think those questions should be in a Humour section what do you think 

I don't think so. We're here to help each other out, not to poke fun at other's mistakes or naiveness. We've all gone through the same, and sometimes still do.

If someone posts a simple system based on Gambler's Fallacy with no pretensions other than fun play in the short run, it's fine. The moment there's some math involved to support HG claims, there will be criticism. I think this particular thread would fall in the first category if it wasn't for the recent history of said HG claims.

In all honesty, we're all fools into thinking the game can be beaten with math; "experts" or not. The best we can do is to minimize costs.

Just MHO.

[iggiv]

OK sorry

[ego]

Falkor here you have a method that cover 36 number and win +1 unit each spin.
link:://betselection.cc/math-statistics/cover-36-numbers-and-yet-win-1-unit-on-a-hit/

There's a mathematical curiosity for having a 36-number layout coverage and yet win +1 unit on a hit:

How can it be?

Targetting #19 as the only number to leave open, the bet goes like this:

3 chips go to number 0
72 chips to low (Covers 1 to 18 )
48 chips to 3rd dozen (Covers 25 to 36)
16 chips to corner 20/24 (Covers 20-21-23-24)
4 chips to straight-up number 22

If any number other than 19 is spun, you win +1.

You need a table with "Le Partage" rule for this bet to work.