The UNbalanced EC bet

[ignatus]

As has been proven from "Balance Matrix" roulette does not strive for balance, the dominant trend is UNbalance. This system takes advantage of this phenomenon.

TRIGGER- As one EC hit two times in a row, bet for it to continue for a third time, then STOP.

Progression -none- FLATBET

[RouletteGhost]

I like seeing no drawdown

The beauty is you can play this on multiple EC same time

[thelaw]

Question about imbalance :

If we could count on an imbalance (or variance) in the game on a regular basis, wouldn't we be able to use the strategy in Thirteen Against the Bank, or any major reverse progression?

These extreme imbalances are what kill every progression eventually, so shouldn't this work in our favor (in theory)?

I'm assuming that in practice the imbalances can take way too long to show (an imbalance of the imbalance) thus killing any system based on this theory.

[ignatus]

Question about imbalance :

If we could count on an imbalance (or variance) in the game on a regular basis, wouldn't we be able to use the strategy in Thirteen Against the Bank, or any major reverse progression?

These extreme imbalances are what kill every progression eventually, so shouldn't this work in our favor (in theory)?

I'm assuming that in practice the imbalances can take way too long to show (an imbalance of the imbalance) thus killing any system based on this theory.

I'm not sure what to answer that :S, i leave that to the "roulette experts" im just trying to understand the game, and this is what i figure: -imbalance is the dominant trend- And yes, it should work in our favor (?) and no, it won't take to long to show. If this is true, that imbalance is dominant, then a positive progression could be used. But that is yet to be proven...

(More testing is needed)....

[thelaw]

I'm not sure what to answer that :S, i leave that to the "roulette experts" im just trying to understand the game, and this is what i figure: -imbalance is the dominant trend- And yes, it should work in our favor (?) and no, it won't take to long to show. If this is true, that imbalance is dominant, then a positive progression could be used. But that is yet to be proven...

(More testing is needed)....

My concern is that if this theory worked, someone would have used it to beat the game long ago.

Steve recently posted some ideas on the PA thread that might shed some light on how to build a solid system.

I only say this because you put in so much great work into these tests, that your time is valuable and should be spent only on the logically superior systems.

A good example would be the 30% wins in 200 spins on EC. As far as I know, this has never been breached, so those numbers will not change. So we know that we will win at least 60 bets in 200 spins. Using a known number, as opposed to something being "due", appears to be a much safer bet.

[ignatus]

Test 2

[ignatus]

My concern is that if this theory worked, someone would have used it to beat the game long ago.

Yes? But you know how people are, putting random chips on the table wishing for "luck", that's how 90% of the people i've seen at casinos play

Furthermore, they have never tested anything, by trial and error or statistics....

im suprised myself, yes, we'll see how long this last....

[thelaw]

Yes? But you know how people are, putting random chips on the table wishing for "luck", that's how 90% of the people i've seen at casinos play

Furthermore, they have never tested anything, by trial and error or statistics....

im suprised myself, yes, we'll see how long this last....

See..........but you're letting your own person bias get to you,as we all do.

We're not talking about those players in the casino, we're talking about hedge-fund managers, scientists, or just those individuals truly obsessed with the game. Think about how much a winning system is worth - Millions!!!

This is where I ask myself, "if the answer is this simple, why hasn't anyone else found it before?"............and so far, I'm 100% right, as we have no working system to beat the game.

I would say the smart money is looking at info that people have disregarded as impractical like a huge bankroll while expecting a tiny profit per day (.5%) plus variance plus virtual betting. Just a thought

Keep up the great work - much appreciated!!!

[atlantis]

Hi ignatus,

The expectation for series of 3 OR MORE on all 3 EC's in 128 spins = 48
You can expect to win around 48 times in 128 spins.

A.

PS.  Amended

[RouletteGhost]

I believe this is how bleep plays. Betting for a streak of 3

[ignatus]

OK, had my first loss (so this isn't the grail!) 

[atlantis]

Hi ignatus,

It because series of 2 EXACTLY for ALL 3 Ec's in 128 spins averages out at 48 also.

Regards,
A.

[ignatus]

Hi ignatus,

It because series of 2 EXACTLY for ALL 3 Ec's in 128 spins averages out at 48 also.

Regards,
A.

OK, but i see from the losing chart, it goes up and down, couldn't the uptrends be boosted with a positive progression? would it make any difference?

[atlantis]

OK, but i see from the losing chart, it goes up and down, couldn't the uptrends be boosted with a positive progression? would it make any difference?

Well now you back into VARIANCE territory.
Much has been spoken of this in the PA preach thread and thelaw is right; Steve also posted some data there too.
I am playing RB series too in my tests - but only for series of 2 OR MORE.
I try and take into account the information shared by PA to produce a profit.
I think you're right but you need to know WHEN is the right time to bet for an "uptrend"

A.

[ignatus]

Played with a positive progression.....