Matrix methods: Who else is winning?

[XXVV]

Thanks Trebor


You asked a question so I will answer.


It is my vote for matrix success because I have used PB/PF successfully in short cycles-please note this is not the same approach as 'hit and run' which I think we all agree is flawed when used simply as self defined.


I have had more success with D+C in selected short cycles which have been enhanced by accurate reading of the state of the Ecart cycle. May I suggest some readers explore this very real phenomenon.




Most success though has come from reversing what is a simple bet turning it on its head so that it is much more user friendly, ie frequent, simple, reliable and with a good win to cost ratio.


Again it is a matter of timing and realistic expectation once you know, understand and respect the characteristics of the bet you are using.


Some writers appear to miss the point here and seem to just wish to push their personal biases.
I have suggested that various matrix bets are tools that have potential to be used wisely.


It need not cost you a penny to test and research other than your use of time. And if you feel you are making some progress or expanding your knowledge, then that is a wonderful thing. It will make you happy! 'Virtual' bets can be made on live feed roulette or watching in a B+M casino. You only need to go 'real' when you are ready and that will take time that needs to be invested - as with all things worthwhile.


I have simply answered the thread title and honestly stated how I have won, with appropriate qualification. Several threads I have added to have specific bet examples if anyone is interested.


Happy Trails
XXVV

[trebor]

XXVV  I understood the question referred to winning with the original matrix methods as laid down by JL and others.

If you have taken the concept and added your own expertise to decide how to use it are we talking about the same thing?

Maybe this is what JL is doing in reality.

Robert

[Juiced91]

XXVV  I understood the question referred to winning with the original matrix methods as laid down by JL and others.

If you have taken the concept and added your own expertise to decide how to use it are we talking about the same thing?

Maybe this is what JL is doing in reality.

Robert

Yes played the way it is told to play.... Not changing and adding your own stuff so its a different method altogether. And XXVV as much as i respect you why cant you share your methods just straight? you say we must all go searching for the tweaks why not just give us the tweaks.  I feel its like that with everyone that knows "something".  All the apparent good methods we get told go read the whole thread thats like 85 pages long. Some times its just a bit crazy...

[XXVV]

Oh dear. This is amusing in some ways and infuriating in others (lol).


I have stated very clearly that I used PB/PF and D+C as directed by the originators to win in short cycles with small appropriate amounts*. ( I also later added personal modification as an option for D+C. Such action is a demonstration of how much I value the original platform win bet in D+C which still has some optimum playing cycles in its original form as long as you read the game accurately.)


How much more clearly do you need this stated?  What more can you want?


That I also chose to time my entry and exit is a matter of personal judgment and I believe if you read some of JL's comments, he may agree with this view. In fact timing is everything.


It really is not that complex.


But it is world's apart from continuous play or testing for a million spins. All these matrix methods ( and many other methods) would lose in such application because such an idiotic and blind approach shows no understanding of the true nature of roulette which, amongst many intriguing characteristics, is a game of cycles within cycles with tides of swinging energies that fill and empty the cup.


No further comment will be added by me on this thread but thanks to those who asked the question, and it is surprising how few have actually responded at this stage.


* every bet will have its characteristic optimum cycles for action, and optimum range of earning, and for that matter risk exposure; and these need to be understood by the player, and the only way to find this out is by your own personal effort.


Many Happy Trails

[horus]

But it is world's apart from continuous play or testing for a million spins. All these matrix methods ( and many other methods) would lose in such application because such an idiotic and blind approach shows no understanding of the true nature of roulette which, amongst many intriguing characteristics, is a game of cycles within cycles with tides of swinging energies that fill and empty the cup.

That's a good reply and sums things up neatly. Too many forumites jump from one promising thing to another without really getting under the hood. Many ideas can lead to 'consistent winning bets' if you fully understand them and more importantly don't get greedy.

[Robeenhuut]

Oh dear. This is amusing in some ways and infuriating in others (LoL).


I have stated very clearly that I used PB/PF and D+C as directed by the originators to win in short cycles with small appropriate amounts*. ( I also later added personal modification as an option for D+C. Such action is a demonstration of how much I value the original platform win bet in D+C which still has some optimum playing cycles in its original form as long as you read the game accurately.)

Hello XXVV

With due respect to your analytical approach to the game still  your take on this subject  sounds like game of chance. Entering the circles at the right moment,following the trends etc.  -  all this feels like you leave to much to the chance or elusive  factor of seizing the right moment. 
I just need a simple analysis involving number of spins, size of bankroll, win to loss ratio.  In matrix systems the numbers provided feel just unattainable and it makes them very susceptible.
If something feels to good to be true it usually is not.....


Regards

[strato1985]

Classic juice

If you aint got the patience to read 85 pages i'm not sure you got much chance of winning a gold fish at the fair let alone roulette .

[Juiced91]

Thanks for that strato. Well its common sense to me,and clearly not for you, that if I know something it would be easier for me to tell them than make them read a million pages when I could just outline it in one post. But seeing you so patient you must have hit the jackpot already. regards

[XXVV]

One more thing then and thanks for the sensible healthy scepticism from RobinHood who really was one of my early heroes, and indeed I did, used to live as a wide eyed child next to the remnants of the mighty oaks of Sherwood Forest.


Please, in my writings over the past 12 months I have recorded a journey of discovery. You dont have to read hundreds of pages, just the last few if you want, because earlier ideas are set aside and improved. Yes I change my mind at times and sometimes will contradict myself but that is because things change. Knowledge grows. But this is a mighty subject and still little is really known.


In the threads on Experimental Ideas I do talk simply and directly about moving averages, game spin durations, and ways to measure Ecart shift/ cycles.


This is not some vague and subjective theory but is a fact and well known to many experienced European players.


I have several ways to measure whether to 'start'  and this is done by finding a suitable 'trigger'. This is done by finding a phase or cycle of play ( usually 10 -30 spins, sometimes longer) where the moving average of results indicates a consistent win streak or run. You dont climb on in the middle of an adverse situation ( thinking naively that it will soon come right or will correct because as we know in many instances this is the Gamblers Fallacy). Instead you climb on when there is a stable cycle of success. How long this may continue can be noted from prior experience to a certain extent but generally you let streaks run and take advantage. You climb off when there is the first sign of correction.


Finding when to 'stop' is thus easier.


This is not chance or fantasy or wishing or any other vagueness but is based on measurable fact.


It is not hard but the gains might be small in unit numbers, but can be high in unit value.


You just have to be realistic and respectful of roulette.


Any hint of pride or arrogance will be severely punished, sooner or later.


My method of play, now well honed as I am about to travel, is based on mainly flat staking , short cycle gains, and small but compounding gains, remarkably small percentage gains on the RB but gains that compound and daily will coalesce. Do the small things well and the bigger aims will fall into place.


Good Hunting
XXVV

[strato1985]

I've enjoyed reading it XXVV

No juice it wasn't common sense the swings of escart and equilibrium to me ...!

He said early on in his post why he was writing down his thoughts

Good luck on your travels XXVV

[Robeenhuut]

One more thing then and thanks for the sensible healthy scepticism from RobinHood who really was one of my early heroes, and indeed I did, used to live as a wide eyed child next to the remnants of the mighty oaks of Sherwood Forest.


Please, in my writings over the past 12 months I have recorded a journey of discovery. You don't have to read hundreds of pages, just the last few if you want, because earlier ideas are set aside and improved. Yes I change my mind at times and sometimes will contradict myself but that is because things change. Knowledge grows. But this is a mighty subject and still little is really known.


In the threads on Experimental Ideas I do talk simply and directly about moving averages, game spin durations, and ways to measure Ecart shift/ cycles.


This is not some vague and subjective theory but is a fact and well known to many experienced European players.


I have several ways to measure whether to 'start'  and this is done by finding a suitable 'trigger'. This is done by finding a phase or cycle of play ( usually 10 -30 spins, sometimes longer) where the moving average of results indicates a consistent win streak or run. You don't climb on in the middle of an adverse situation ( thinking naively that it will soon come right or will correct because as we know in many instances this is the Gamblers Fallacy). Instead you climb on when there is a stable cycle of success. How long this may continue can be noted from prior experience to a certain extent but generally you let streaks run and take advantage. You climb off when there is the first sign of correction.


Finding when to 'stop' is thus easier.


This is not chance or fantasy or wishing or any other vagueness but is based on measurable fact.


It is not hard but the gains might be small in unit numbers, but can be high in unit value.


You just have to be realistic and respectful of roulette.


Any hint of pride or arrogance will be severely punished, sooner or later.


My method of play, now well honed as I am about to travel, is based on mainly flat staking , short cycle gains, and small but compounding gains, remarkably small percentage gains on the RB but gains that compound and daily will coalesce. Do the small things well and the bigger aims will fall into place.


Good Hunting
XXVV

Hello XXVV

Nice one about a folks hero hehe. i guess we have to agree to disagree on this subject.
I would love somebody to go through some live wheel numbers and really find out if really these methods work.
This is the only way to solve this dispute. Numbers provided seem very doubtful to some forum members and i dont see any other way.
But it has to be done "hit and run" way so it is almost impossible or very time consuming.
Anyway good luck to anybody who stiill plays them and makes money. 

Regards

[Kimo Li]

For the record.

Yes, I am

[Timo]

For the record.

Yes, I am

Heh, why I am not surprised.. 

[Juiced91]

Thanks to all the people that commented/contributed to this thread..

19/21 people have lost with this method so to me its pretty conclusive but there might be more that havent voted.

Thanks again

[Jimmyfarside]

For the record.

Yes, I am

For the RECORD, and for the MASSES........................How?


Would U show/tell?