Anti 5 System

[vundarosa]

You need a wife fund. Put a little aside here and there until it comes to £20 or so, then give it to her with these words.
"Heres a few quid out of the Roulette winnings luv. Go get your hair done"
Then use these phrases when asked how its doing
" its been up and down"
"I'm testing a new system on practice mode"
"I did win, but it clawed it back, i'm breaking even this week"
"Oh roulette? not been on it for ages"

When you get to 300U+, you slip the hairdresser scam in again, but £30 this time.

This is called a "salon progression"

--------------------------

lol, good one.....will try this salon progression with some minor tweaks 

vundarosa

[rolf-harris]

Betting against a pattern might work.

Using color, as an example...

If you have a pre-determined Red/Black betting sequence of 5 steps (say R, B, B, R, R) what are
the chances that you will be right on all 5 bets? The answer is 50% (or ½) multiplied 5 times by
itself, or 1 in 32. That means that if you come to the table and tell yourself that for the next 5
bets you will be betting R, B, B, R, R, regardless of what comes up on the table, there is a 1 to 32
probability that you will be hitting all bets right. Now, this is a very low probability.

On the other hand, the opposite is also true, that the probability of hitting all 5 bets wrong is also
1 in 32. That means, that if you come to the table and you bet a predetermined sequence of say
R, B, B, R, R, by using a 5 step Martingale betting method, you have a 31/32 or 97% chance that
one of the 5 bets will hit right.

The strategy then will be to change the 5 Step pattern after every winning sequence. This way you
will be attacking the next 5 bets, with an equal probability of 97% winning chances from run to run.

Now, a 5 step marty is probably not the 1st choice in a negative progression, I just use it for
example convenience. The point is betting a pattern may work, but whether it's best to use
a preconceived pattern or one taken from previous results needs to be tested

Mathematicians may argue with me, that changing patterns doesn’t change the probabilities, but in
my testing every time I set a random betting sequence of 5 bets and apply it, it hardly fails.
No system will win 100% of the time. The goal is a high percentage chance of winning and winning
more sessions than you lose.

I’m not denying the possibility, that one of the patterns that I chose to play could lose all 5 bets,
but again, the chances are only 1 in 32 (or 3%).

Yes Lee..... I must go along with you on the idea that throwing in a random pattern to bet against hardly ever fails...In fact I made an Excel sheet to give me the patterns against the dozens.
I called it the Pure luck System and you will find it on the forums..
but I didn't get any rave notices about it even though throughout my testing I never found it to lose during the time I spent testing it...

[rolf-harris]

Testing, testing...one,two...