No he has nothing to do with here. You can do your own testing and make up your own mind about his approaches.

You're new here. I'm been trying to teach people Earth isn't flat, for decades. If I come across as blunt, it's because even with the truth in their faces, people still stare at the horizon saying "See, it's FLAT".

Quote from: Richard Meisel on Apr 08, 11:21 PM 2020Is Martin Silverthorne a part of this forum? I took his Super Neural Strategy and tweaked his Betting Progression and changed his Targets and his Betting scheme, and am Winning around 80 per cent.

I've bought a couple of Silverthorne's Systems.  They're basically "hit & run" methods, meaning you can make money when it's working, then when it doesn't work, you'll lose your bankroll. So obviously it's a short-term method, but most all roulette systems out there are basically short-term, meaning you will eventually lose in the long run.  If you're serious about winning in a more realistic manner, you should invest in getting  the Roulette Xtreme roulette software for professional players --  :.uxsoftware.com

I wouldn't dare use real money with Silverthorne's method until you've tested it with Roulette Xtreme with at least 50,000 spins minimum. But 1-million spins seems to the consensus, but in my opinion that's a bit too much.  After all, who in their Life-time will play 1 million Roulette spins -- At 60 spins per hour, that's a whopping 16,666 hours of play!!!

But if you insist, don't bother going to Vegas. There's "live wheel" Roulette online, you can practice here:  :.liveroulette.ie

And use real money with PayPal here, no ID verification needed, U.S. players welcome. You can start with .10 cent chips!:  :.club.liveroulette.ie

GOOD LUCK!!!  ;-)

Thank you for your very nice reply. It took a long time for me to be a nice guy. I do realize that my revised Super Neural Strategy loses in the long run. It's impossible to figure out a system to win at craps and roulette when every bet has a house vig. You can put $100 on 35 numbers on a European wheel and win $100 35 out of 38 spins, for a 94% chance of winning, but that 1 loss! Even in craps I have a bet that wins 33/36 and one that wins 34/36. I even have a bet that wins 35/36!, a whopping 97%!, but this last bet you have to put up 100 times what you win. These bets do ok with one roll only, but are too risky. That's why I prefer a progression on the Even/Odd bet with roulette. Thank you for the info. I don't trust online casinos and random generators.  One last story you might like. A few years ago I went to Vegas to a $50,000 craps tournament, winners winning a lot of money. They gave us all $50,000 in play chips and the total time for the game was one hour. I used up almost all of my chips betting on the 5,6,8, Field, Lay4, and Hard4. Every number wins a few thousand dollars. Every number but the Easy4 which only comes up 2 out of 36 rolls! The dealer rolls, and he rolls an Easy4! Ouch! Have a happy Passover.

Quote from: Richard Meisel on Apr 09, 01:52 PM 2020That's why I prefer a progression on the Even/Odd bet with roulette.

Good Luck with that!  Casino's know better, so they make their Table Limits low enough to nullify any sort of progression.  Have a Good One and Be Safe!   

Yes, that is why I use a progression that has Stops and don't go anywhere near a table limit.

Quote from: Richard Meisel on Apr 09, 04:41 PM 2020Yes, that is why I use a progression that has Stops and don't go anywhere near a table limit.

Your Method can be working for a long time, but you have to know that at any moment, it will fail. Professionals in the past have Systems that can work for a whole year, then the unexpected happens, their System goes bust!  Have fun while it lasts! And always remember the basic "rule of thumb" -- Never bet more than you can afford to lose! 

Nice advice.

Quote from: Bebediktus3 on Mar 25, 07:49 AM 2020So the task is who has better chances first to collect his sequence. Better chances to collect sequences have that, who collect sequences from three different numbers!

I confirmed that this is the case with a simulation. The program asks for a pattern of 3 (numbers 1-6, corresponding to dice roll outcomes) and then generates the random outcomes. There is a fixed outcome window of 3 (so when a number is added the first in the sequence is removed) and the number of spins it takes for the pattern to come up is recorded. This is repeated half a million times and then the average is calculated. The results are very stable because of the large sample size.

On average it takes about 20% more spins to get 3 numbers all the same than if all the numbers are different :

Processing pattern 456...
Average rolls until pattern is 456 = 216

Processing pattern 666...
Average rolls until pattern is 666 = 258

Try for yourself using different patterns. e.g. a pattern XYX takes a little longer to appear than XYZ. The $64k question is : do these statistical results have any implications for roulette systems?

I see how you would think that the odds of a number hitting 6 times in a row is 2,565,726,409 to 1 ODDS, but that is only the odds of that specific number hitting 6 times in a row. The odds of any of the 37 hitting in a row is 37^5 = 69343957 to 1. This is because when a spin comes out and a new number comes out, you start the calculation from there. If the ball spins, the odds of any specific number coming out is 37^6. But once each number comes out of each spin, whatever that number is the odds of getting six of it are only 37^5 now aren't they. Because whatever number just came out last, you only need 5 of them now

QuoteI confirmed that this is the case with a simulation. The program asks for a pattern of 3 (numbers 1-6, corresponding to dice roll outcomes) and then generates the random outcomes. There is a fixed outcome window of 3 (so when a number is added the first in the sequence is removed) and the number of spins it takes for the pattern to come up is recorded. This is repeated half a million times and then the average is calculated. The results are very stable because of the large sample size.

On average it takes about 20% more spins to get 3 numbers all the same than if all the numbers are different :

Thx Joe...good work