Even Stevens

[mogul397]

I think you read a little too much into it

All those inquiries you made hinder your understanding of the method

This is it: OE bet O. EO bet E.

Thats it. Nothing more nothing less.

OP recommended a progression of damblert and to wait 1 virtual win or loss.

You dont have to play that exact way. Free think a bit and try it in zumma

Whether its in examples or not doesn't mean much. Perform a test. Its such a simple method you can execute a 40 spin test in 3 minutes.

Constructive criticism: you think to deep into methods. This is simple. I mean this is as simple as it can get.

Thanks RG.  Actually, to be fair, I often don't think deep enough. That's why I end up looking
stupid out of the box.  A little too quick on the draw.  But I know what you mean and what
you are saying.  Gave it a zumma wallpaper test. And it seems reasonable.

NOW,  I'll drill deeper. These are my collective thoughts.

1) I wondered in the beginning about seeing the virtual waits on wins and losses. Then I saw what
seemed to be ignoring them. And a weird documentation crossing "units with units" (like calling
"10" a unit, and then talking about =/- 1 unit.  Even for a dummy like me, that pops breakers in my head.
So I tried to think it through, read the thread, hope someone else noticed....

2) I think that I've explored a method similar to this, but was not sure what could be unique about this
direction. I've looked at aspects of "playing streaks (more than 1 in a row), chops, and the like. In this
obvious methodology you are now playing some sequential betting (flat or progression), which is kind
of spreading out what you might be doing if you bet every spin. (You watching MrJ?)
And then you go through mind spins about how many in a row there are, if you can make more betting
the D'alenbert, how many in a row happen, etc etc.   And you realize that it's no differnet.

However I do think (my own fallacy) that stoping and waiting out losing streaks helps. My own fallacy.

3) Putting a bow on the package, the D'alenbert always seems like the simple solution. And finding something
creative, like spreading out the bet selections, always seems to be the ointment that will smooth it out.
But generally the D'alenbert never seems the best solution.

I like what you (RG) were pointing out in your list of results. It kind of worked. Playing straight showed the
probablility of a long number of losses.  You didn't lay out the results per this method. But if you had,
it would have helped a long D'alenbert that ended up resolving.

I like this kind of methodology. Still looking for something not too outrageous to go and play.
To have many good sessions where I feel comfortable that I won't break a bank, enjoy a couple
hours of play, and make a couple bucks.

I plan on doing more testing, but wanted to see what the masses resolve about this virtual loss waiting
thing, so I can know what I am doing or looking for.

I think the sentiment so far is pretty good.

[mogul397]

BTW, the simple way to see the methodology is that you are looking for
single evens.  The occur half the time. Just trying to jump over the
sequences.

[Tamino]

Observation:


Trying to  beat  roulette is  like a dog running in a circle trying to catch his own tail.




For recreational purposes only"Play it at your own risk.<<<<< ROFLMAO

[mogul397]

And after looking and considering this more, one thing that is popular is to look for
doubles. Weather to play them or avoid them.

I can tell you from experience, they LOVE to cluster.  You get a cluster of

EEOOEEOOEEOO, and you're dead.  Good thing to defend yourself from.

[mogul397]

Observation:


Trying to  beat  roulette is  like a dog running in a circle trying to catch his own tail.




For recreational purposes only"Play it at your own risk.<<<<< ROFLMAO

Good observation. What brings you here, then?

[mogul397]

And after looking and considering this more, one thing that is popular is to look for
doubles. Weather to play them or avoid them.

I can tell you from experience, they LOVE to cluster.  You get a cluster of

EEOOEEOOEEOO, and you're dead.  Good thing to defend yourself from.

You DOG, you.....

[RouletteGhost]

[Tamino]

Good observation. What brings you here, then?

REPLY:  To get a good laugh.


For recreational purposes only. Chuckle at your own risk.

[RouletteGhost]

REPLY:  To get a good laugh.


For recreational purposes only. Chuckle at your own risk.

Was talkin to mr j and general about a meet n greet. Can you come?

And tell me to eat the rare steak at my own risk

[Tamino]

RG


Great idea of yours. But what always concerns me is that"Risk Clause". LOL.

[RouletteGhost]

RG


Great idea of yours. But what always concerns me is that"Risk Clause". LOL.

When mr j brought up meeting and invited general i immediately thought "its a ploy to kill me"

[MrJ]

When mr j brought up meeting and invited general i immediately thought "its a ploy to kill me"

I just bought the shovels today.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

Most expensive thing on the menu for me then

[Tomla021]

cmon yall should be in 'The Bi#ch And Complain Thread Aka Your Chance to Yell At The General. " doing dinner plans etc

[RouletteGhost]

cmon yall should be in 'The Bi#ch And Complain Thread Aka Your Chance to Yell At The General. " doing dinner plans etc

We will drag u into this! I know what state ur in!

Works been slow

I need another hobby