one can reduce bets and go for it... only two bets have to be placed at maximum to exploit this =)
Alberto
I was just going to explain, using the logic of KonFuSed, how this is pure gambler's fallacy, but the above statement stopped me cold.
Would you or JAG care to explain it, or if it has been explained and I missed it, point me in the right direction.
Sam
After all mathematically it is always 50% minus the zero. Doesn't matter what triggers are chosen for bet selection, in raw the odds stay the same. It has been explained countless times.
The only difference is the spam of the correction. One can play a lifetime winning as other can lose at first session. It is just that some believe that some bets have less dispersion of hits than others and that can be exploited with nice money management.
There are no illusions.
========================================================
I would like to add that i often see this progression being applied:
+1 on a Loss -1 on a Win.
In my head this misses logic. It is supposed to bet more on wins and less on losses. So for me this configures inverted logic.
I would prefer to raise my unit on a loss and stay the same on a win.
a bit off topic but i had to mention it.
========================================================
About the bet suggested above it is simple:
You see RRR BBB BBB R_->here you bet chop (B)
if lost
you bet again.
===============================
I want to refer also that when we mention mathematically it means on a infinite number of spins...
Did anyone see 60 reds in a row?
NOT. but it is possible. Anyone won the lottery 3 times in a row? Not. But still possible....
Who never got a green light when arriving at traffic lights?
We play Human conditioned sessions, on Live Roulette it means at most 350 spins. The formations that appear on such sessions are common and Huge deviations are rare. One must tend to explore what is most common.
Cheers