Target Betting - Blog Claims HG

[thelaw]

Found this blog through another forum :

link:://:.targetbetting.blogspot.ca/

Tons of info. Anyone familiar with this?

Be warned.......huge bankroll needed........1-5000 unit swings

[TwoCatSam]

That's not a blog; it's a freakin' book. 

[GLC]

I looked at this or something similar to it a couple of years ago.  The huge bankroll is the big negative as I saw it.  It's a very close cousin to a standard martingale but based on a double win instead of a single win.  Too risky for my blood.

GLC

[MumboJumbo]

Target3-Play progression, nonsense.

[foogus]

Target3-Play progression, nonsense.

Agree, there are far better ways to play.

[RouletteGhost]

Agree, there are far better ways to play.

Can you make some contributions on the better ways to play

[foogus]

Can you make some contributions on the better ways to play

I was a system believer and some systems do work, but not always.  When they fail, unless you are diciplined the failures wipe you out.  This is the problem with most gamblers, one failure, wipe out, systems is a failure, not necessarily true, but system is abandoned as a failure.

Now I don't use systems, what I use ALL of us possess, but 99% of us will never use.  It can't really be taught, you have to find it yourself, but when you do (if you do) you probably will only use it a for a short while to bet on roulette.  If the path to it does not change you, finding it will.  So much so that your whole outlook on life will be altered and you won't need to win with roulette anymore.

Complete gobbledegook I know, but that is how it is.

[RouletteGhost]

Please, elaborate. Im sure many smart guys on this forum would take heed.

[ego]

Why not explore RTM (Regresson Towards The Mean)

"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

Quote from: roversi13 on May 03, 2015, 09:33:16 am
A vietnamise guys are concerned,playing for breaking streaks,but not all streaks,maybe they played only B,for instance,only if B has occurred more than P since the beginning of the shoe(vice versa for P).It's the principle of the Hong Kong method.

Most likely events occuring  in clusters or chops.
An old french mathematicians/scientist explained that 50 years ago.
Your feeling is supported by mathematical or statistic theories.

Another theory very well known in trigonometry(the arcsin law - see google) explains why in 20 decisions,for instance,exactly 10 B and 10 P have only 17,5% probabilities to occur.
Many players try to exploit this rule at Baccarat,and it works….in certain conditions.

In the past I've known an old player that played ,not exactly the opposite of the last decision as you said ,but only SINGLES(after PPPB he bets P,in order to have an isolated B)
His theory was:
singles are the double of 2s,that are the double of 3s,that are the double of 4s…….etc
Then the streaks of 50s,are the double of the streaks of 51…..the streaks of 125 are the double of streaks of 126 and so on.
But a player won't never see streaks of 50,51,125,126 or more etc….
It means that singles have a small advantage for compensating very very long streaks that exist,theoretically,but you'll never see.
So a player will see much more singles in his "player life",so play them.
Strange theory??

[foogus]

Please, elaborate. Im sure many smart guys on this forum would take heed.

I agree RouletteGhost, there are many smart people on this forum, many logical thinkers to I expect.  Therein lies the problem, you have to overcome or ignore logic and be prepared to see what is not able to be seen.  It just is. 

What I am talking about takes literally hundreds of hours of practice, most of the practice does not involve roulette, but once applied to roulette only requires betting on one number at a time.  When the technique is perfected you will regularly be able to hit each number bet on within 1-4 spins. You will still have failures, but they will be few.

I have told you all I need to tell you. Now you and any others reading will either find it or not.  If you don't find it, you were not meant to, simple as that.

[RouletteGhost]

I agree RouletteGhost, there are many smart people on this forum, many logical thinkers to I expect.  Therein lies the problem, you have to overcome or ignore logic and be prepared to see what is not able to be seen.  It just is. 

What I am talking about takes literally hundreds of hours of practice, most of the practice does not involve roulette, but once applied to roulette only requires betting on one number at a time.  When the technique is perfected you will regularly be able to hit each number bet on within 1-4 spins. You will still have failures, but they will be few.

I have told you all I need to tell you. Now you and any others reading will either find it or not.  If you don't find it, you were not meant to, simple as that.

Ok, fair enough.

Was just trying to nudge you to make a contribution. A common theme lately is "newer" members that claim to have beaten the game but will not share the way. Its standard procedure now.

[foogus]

Ok, fair enough.

Was just trying to nudge you to make a contribution. A common theme lately is "newer" members that claim to have beaten the game but will not share the way. Its standard procedure now.

You are using LOGIC RouletteGhost, you will not get it until you LET that go. Think about it, ask YOURSELF the RIGHT question, then SLEEP on it. Do it every night until you get it. You have the answer WITHIN, you just have to find it. No one gave me the answer and no one will give you the answer, but if you want it you will find it.

Talk to YOURSELF, question YOURSELF, do it right before you go to sleep.  Take note of what you find within YOURSELF when you first wake up.

If you think I am talking nonsense, you have no hope of finding what I am talking about, your LOGICAL mind is too strong and will always rule.

[thelaw]

You are using LOGIC RouletteGhost, you will not get it until you LET that go. Think about it, ask YOURSELF the RIGHT question, then SLEEP on it. Do it every night until you get it. You have the answer WITHIN, you just have to find it. No one gave me the answer and no one will give you the answer, but if you want it you will find it.

Talk to YOURSELF, question YOURSELF, do it right before you go to sleep.  Take note of what you find within YOURSELF when you first wake up.

If you think I am talking nonsense, you have no hope of finding what I am talking about, your LOGICAL mind is too strong and will always rule.

Here we go again..........BULLSHIT DETECTOR: HIGH ALERT!!!

Foogus has now offered zero info on how to beat the game.

Falkor, John Legend, and now Foogus.

This is starting to happen at least once-a-week now. This type of response should not be respected with even a follow-up question, as they have nothing to say. What a massive waste of everyone's time

[foogus]

If you think I am talking nonsense, you have no hope of finding what I am talking about, your LOGICAL mind is too strong and will always rule.

[MumboJumbo]

I must agree with foogus everything what he said is true, why should I ask him to tell me the solution for roulette? I dont need to, because I think there is only one solution, no two or three and he knows what I talking about