Random Thoughts

[RouletteGhost]

I know you have. I admire that

It's just a bit odd that no one has posted a solidified method of play using the information presented

If they have I missed it

[ati]

I have to add that in the end, maybe I will have to admit that I wasted all that precious time, but let's be patient for now and see what can be achieved this year. 

[cerces]

From the 80+ pages of this thread so far, I guess that we can expect the record for procrastinational postings to exceed 100, 200 or more pages during the year.
I also predict that not a single, useful or workable "system" emerges from the years of megabyte wasting data that the various roulette forums extol!
Casino management worldwide drink to, and joke about, the endless stream of so-described..........     "WINNING@ROULETTE"
quasi-systems, plans, schemes, scams and assorted VB, (VisualBullshit) video "Proof-that-my-Secret-Computer" works, when it patently does not, (no matter how irritating SH gets)
There are literally hundreds of optional methods for playing this particular game, and guess what, they all work!
The hurdle that screws with players minds, is that "your" strategy may not align with the period when you are actually playing, and that is why reviewing and coding past event series means nothing, in relation to your expectations.
All the psycho-babble in the world, might get your quote in someone elses thesis, but will not put $$$$ in your pocket, no matter how long you are played on any forum thread.

[BellagioOwner]

so why you post on a roulette forum having these opinions? Just ignore them to begin with 

[RouletteGhost]

sometimes i post without fully articulating my thoughts

here is what i want to know

has this thread given anyone the knowledge and building blocks to create a successful method of play, or has over a year of this thread not led to anything?

dont want to share the method? thats fine. I just want to know someone made something from this

[ignatus]

Maybe it's just me, but I can easily resist clicking on thread titles and reading posts that I don't care about. Like the fight between Steve and Turbo, the countless Ignatus threads, etc.
It is really hard to understand these concepts, some of us have spent hundreds of hours reading these posts and staring at excel tables, and we are still at the beginning. But I hope one day it will become clear

What the hell you mean you're wasting your time reading my threads?? You don't know the hard work behind it, obviously? Stop complaining :/ im not talking in riddles like priyanka, you see what you get with my systems, it's no mystery.

I don't like this thread, and i don't want to participate in it, it's pure nonsense. if you can't explain a system clearly, what's the point?

[ati]

I respect your works and your dedication. What I was trying to say is that I don't open all of your new threads anymore, because I know I would not play those systems. I didn't use the word "waste" in that sentence, I just wrote that I don't care about new systems. In general, not just yours, I have nothing against you. Your name came into my mind when I posted, because you have started 698 topics so far. Sorry if I offended you.
I have lost enough money to give up on all systems, this cycle/non random/parallel game stuff is the only thing I see potential in. If I won't be able to understand it, I will forget about roulette.

[falkor2k15]

I respect your works and your dedication. What I was trying to say is that I don't open all of your new threads anymore, because I know I would not play those systems. I didn't use the word "waste" in that sentence, I just wrote that I don't care about new systems. In general, not just yours, I have nothing against you. Your name came into my mind when I posted, because you have started 698 topics so far. Sorry if I offended you.
I have lost enough money to give up on all systems, this cycle/non random/parallel game stuff is the only thing I see potential in. If I won't be able to understand it, I will forget about roulette.

But is the "parallel" part really needed though? Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough - but it transpires we don't actually need VdW. So the question is: could all the concepts discussed herein somehow be combined - minus any parallel streams and VdW - to gain edge?

[maestro]

@falkor....i never said that    <Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough >

[falkor2k15]

@falkor....i never said that    <Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough >

Yeah, you threw us off that time!  I try to find your quote...

[falkor2k15]

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.msg161585#msg161585
reply #352

So the new question is: can all these concepts work - minus VdW and parallel - to gain edge? What's the least number of concepts we can use to gain edge?

[maestro]

i said PHP cannot work,reason being is that you have to force roulette to produce only unique numbers in order to happen...about VDW i said nothing...

[falkor2k15]

i said PHP cannot work,reason being is that you have to force roulette to produce only unique numbers in order to happen...about VDW i said nothing...

You not doing a good job defending yourself. The context of the discussion was whether PHP can work without VdW, and you said it cannot work. So don't try and get out of it, Mr.! If we took this to a court of law - you would win the case only because you are probably brothers with the judge!

[ati]

But is the "parallel" part really needed though? Maestro said we need VdW to win - PHP is not enough - but it transpires we don't actually need VdW. So the question is: could all the concepts discussed herein somehow be combined - minus any parallel streams and VdW - to gain edge?

I think that's the key. If we mean the same thing by parallel.
Priyanka has emphasized many times that 2 or more games need to played, because each individual game on its own is a loser. Below is the perfect example how two losing games played together can be turned into a winning game.

There is a game where you need to take 100 steps. You start with £100. At the end of every step you take, you are allowed to choose one of the following options.
Option 1 : You lose £1 for every step.
Option 2 : You are allowed to count the money in your hand. If it is even you win £3. If it is odd you win £5.

Now if you keep on choosing Option 1, you will lose all your money at the end of 100th step.
If you keep choosing only Option 2, you will lose all your money at the end of 100th step.

Both options individually played will lose you money. But consider the option, where you start with Option 2 in the first step, Option 1 in the second step and keep alternating. You would have doubled your money when you have taken the 100th step. Fascinating right! 

Of course the hardest part is to figure out what games should be played together, and when to bet what. Cycles and statistical relations can help avoid the variance for our bet  selection, and can increase the odds. It was proven that the odds for each individual bets are the same, but we should not play individual spins. We must think in group of numbers.
If I got it all wrong, please correct me.

I stll think that VDW is just one example of non random bet selection, and it's not essential. A quote from a week ago:

Cycles is the main concept that Priyanka shared

Yes it is. But it is nothing without using the other concepts. VdW is not one of them.

[maestro]

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QAHzu_kAc.....you are funny guy