RULES for confirmation of a CONSISTENT Bet

[Compa]

Hi.

It seems like a lot of the Posters on this Board are not aware of the facts that identifies and acknowledging a Consistent Winning-Bet.

There is a lot of shallow Reports of 100 spins here , 200 there, that are either positive or negative, up or down. Now, this tells us absolutely nothing.

In order to save Time and Energy, You should all look for this:

When You think You have something(A Bet/s) Run it for 3000 spins, not more , not less.

Use RX with a proper Code. Divide the spins into either 30x100 spin sessions or 60x50 spin sessions.

If running 100 spinsessions, You can only lose ONE session. If running 50 spin sessions, you can only lose TWO sessions.

This simple rule will either tell us that our Bet suck or is a Winner. If You chose to enter the Casino without a "Consistent" Bet, You are either Very very Lucky, or Very very Rich. Because You will lose in the Long Run. Thats the Fact!

Cheers mates

/Compa

[atlantis]

Hi Compa,

Thanks for that. I think it a good rule, generally speaking, for the reasons which you have given.
I think I might try it with warriors "Perfect 10" system whch I have now returned to testing and try and record the results of playing 30 x 100spins sessions - although I will stop each session when +5 and then post the results. Do you think that will be fair enough?

A.

[Compa]

No. stop when in profit will give you a false report. This will not tell You if the Bet is consistent or not. The only way is to apply the Rules pointed out.

Cheers!

[superman]

Here's a rule of thumb I use, I code the method into a bot and just let it run, for thousands of spins, this way you can see all the wins and all the losses over many spins, I then use this data to work out the gaps between losses to see if they are far enough apart.

Example using 5 step martingale progression:

500 attacks over say 1200 spins, Win = + 1

12 losses @ 31 units per loss = 372

Profit = 128 units

This will eventually tell me a few things, should I wait for a loss then bet 5 to 10 times or can I risk doubling up for the next so many bets after a loss etc etc.

If you run thousands of tests over and over you will eventually be able to work out a plan of attack or a method of attack to capitalise while the going is good. Don't forget though, no matter how long you test for a bad run CAN happen after another bad run.

[atlantis]

Hi /Compa,

OK. 100 spins it is. I will test using RX and import spins from Wiesbaden or similar. I will have to manually test as I am not proficient to code this into a auto-runnable system.
Cheers,
A.

[Compa]

Here's a rule of thumb I use, I code the method into a bot and just let it run, for thousands of spins, this way you can see all the wins and all the losses over many spins, I then use this data to work out the gaps between losses to see if they are far enough apart.

Example using 5 step martingale progression:

500 attacks over say 1200 spins, Win = + 1

12 losses @ 31 units per loss = 372

Profit = 128 units

This will eventually tell me a few things, should I wait for a loss then bet 5 to 10 times or can I risk doubling up for the next so many bets after a loss etc etc.

If you run thousands of tests over and over you will eventually be able to work out a plan of attack or a method of attack to capitalise while the going is good. Don't forget though, no matter how long you test for a bad run CAN happen after another bad run.

Progressions, running astronomical amounts of spins, its all a waste of money and time.

Applying the RULES pointed out is all it takes.

Cheers

[Paja]

So this applies only to flat betting? No progressions and also no money management?

What about number of placed bets? Is testing this way good if we place only 10-20 bets during 100 spins?

[atlantis]

Progressions, running astronomical amounts of spins, its all a waste of money and time.
Applying the RULES pointed out is all it takes.

Hi Compa,

Have begun the 30 session x 100 spins test and posted first result over at the "perfect 10" thread.
Future results will be abbreviated and only show the final outcome etc..

Thanks again for your suggestion,
A.

[Jordan]

Compa
This testing suggestion is exactly the win.3.million sugestion.

I don't say that it is not a good testiong.In fact it is the best of the best!

But the consistant winning bets is a scam fallacy(unfortunatelly)
Nothing can win because there is no reason to win.

If u have indeed found a CWB please just say YES or NO.

Thank you.


ps.I was a huge fun of the CWB idea.
Untill I EXPOSED win.3mill my self and I stoped looking for 1.
The man just want to scam people by taking their money.And I have 100% hard proofs of that.

NOTHING CAN WIN MORE OR LOSE MORE.ALL ARE EQUAL

[Compa]

All i say is that when you want to test your Bet it must pass the 3000 spin test. Thats all i said.
I have 2 Bets that meets this Requirements. Ask Victor, he coded it for me.

Cheers

[VLS]

Ask Victor, he coded it for me.

Cheers

...Affirmative. Compa is actually the one who kindly deposited me the $20 dollars in moneybookers I used for Joyland at the documenting thread  

[button]

To really test a system it needs to at least pass this test.  Compa had it right.