Poll
Question:
What is your favorite: Disk-based, or Layout-based?
Option 1: The Disk
votes: 13
Option 2: Table Layout
votes: 1
Option 3: No difference
votes: 7
Is it the same to play based on the Disk than the Layout?
What do you guys say, which one you think has an advantage? Open Poll!
If you can, please elaborate why you made your choice in the poll.
Thanks.
Victor
Believe in Disc my friend!
sectors rule.
Cheers
Jakkalsdraai
Yes, I am also for disk based numbers, so sector playing!!
Why, because layout based numbers are almost the same as pure luck!!
Regards
Frank
Maby a stupid question but disk based is the same as the wheel layout? :-[
Quotebut disk based is the same as the wheel layout?
hehe, good one mate. I better say TABLE layout to be extra clear.
[edit] Hope this time it is clear enough ;)
Options are:
The Disk
Table Layout
No difference[/edit]
Thanks for clearing that up Victor.
Well, i dont think it realy make a difference.
The both have there advanteges and disadvantges, but i think it depends on the system your playing.
If you play straight numbers i would go for disk- based because the advantege of 'hot sectors' and table layout for outside bets because one of the dozen is 'hot', but it doenst belong to a certain sector.
I hope i', clear on the last one?
I say NO DIFFERENCE. Many will disagree, but it all comes down to the numbers being set up in a different manner.
The numbers are there, the sectors are your choice. You can have all sorts of different arrangements for sectors, it just happens that you have 2 ways to directly visualize them... one on the wheel, other on the "carpet" ... ROFLMAO ....
You can even devise your own "layout", your own set of numbers (sectors) according to whatever concept crosses your mind. Think about it.
If you can test a simple system on sectors, make 3 tests ! One on the wheel, one on the table layout and one on a made up layout... Given enough trials, it all comes down to the same, IMHO.
Either [highlight]that[/highlight], or i am tottally wrong, which is also fine. [smiley=grin.gif]
QuoteGiven enough trials, it all comes down to the same, IMHO.
Either that, or I am tottally wrong, which is also fine.
You aren't wrong my mate. If there were a single form of splitting the wheel or layout which gives an advantage in the long term, then the game would be flawed! ( and is not ).
Having said that in the SHORT TERM I think it is all a matter of DYNAMICS in the numerical groups.
Some people like toby plays the layout AND the disk without making a difference.
He said the only thing that matters is the DYNAMICS and the EVENTS are the same for any division of 6 numbers.
I tend to agree with toby in that regard, but I must also say some things are easier to visualize or see with the disk than the layout and there is an advantage with the disk: you can make 37 of everything! i.e 37 "dozens", etc...
Let's continue discussing this since I love to hear every side.
Victor,
Lately, i have begun to design new systems or ideas around the disk or cylinder layout instead of the table layout. I tested my ideas using real spins from Hamburg and got slightly better results than using it on the table layout. It may just be a fluctuation from the norm but it may also be due to slighly bias wheel datas. I don't know for sure.
A thing is sure... using the cylinder layout opens new opportunities and it may just be what one needs at times to change the course of events. Sometimes a change of paradigm is just what we need to go from a losing situation to a winning one.
Quoteusing the cylinder layout opens new opportunities and it may just be what one needs at times to change the course of events.
Art, with "37 of everything" I agree with you it opens new opportunities -for the
astute viewer.
When you have 37 double-streets, the more chances for you to find a HOT, warm or one suitable for your system/observation.
I am more in line with Toby's views. But also when seeing the game from the disk I realize you can extend your events to neighbours, or distances ( spaces ) between pockets or "Ball Jumps"; also patterns such as "repeats together", "the hole", zones of "X", etc.
The main advantage I see for the layout lies in the pocket, MY pocket! LoL, since for instance to play a double street from the layout the minimum is 1 unit while a disk-based double street ( any 6-number group ) costs a min. of six units to be played from straight numbers.
Art, once some people are done with the disk, I listen to the same: they end up on the "it is all about numerical groups dynamics" side... either from the disk or the layout.
...ask helder! :)
p.s. hope you can get a good benefit from your disk-based observations, and remember we are always open to reading your views dear friend.
Best regards.
Victor
I did post my first complete system today. I hope you'll understand my explanations. [smiley=Santa001.gif]
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1201624981
Here is one of the reason why i tend to favor a disk based system...
You can target dynamic sectors which seems to perform much better than fixed table layout sectors. In this screen capture i show 3 dynamic sectors which are defined by the 3 first spins. If the first 3 spins have at least a gap of 4 empty cells between them then i bet on the most current leader. When there is parity i bet the most recent leader.
Demo Wiesbaden table 2 - 2008/01/30 (yyyy/mm/dd)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi34.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff34%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fdynami10.gif&hash=ce28cbb607ddd32f9595d7e5cabf5a63c5ee51e3)
Arte, Since I'm a believer that it shouldn't make a difference I also would like to clarify that. It shouldn't make a difference at times. I believe it will cycle between working better and worse, making a difference and not, working better for the table layout and not, etc... If it's a good system it will cycle well between working and not working making it easy to decide when best to use it or alter it.
QuoteIf it's a good system it will cycle well between working and not working making it easy to decide when best to use it or alter it.
I like this description not a bad estimation at all.
I agree with you Arte + Gizmotron.
I like to use "contrary" selection criteria. I.e. REPEAT last 2 dozens/columns & JUMP from last dozen/column.
Sometimes I draw a line going from one to the other ( or not playing ) and it can hold up into a nice balance close to equilibrium.
With proper money management, close to equilibrium = $$$ :)
( Even if you don't "Beat the wheel" )
Regards,
Victor
p.s. when dealing with money management one of the things I consider "proper" is to cancel in a concentration of hits rather than the explosive "one hit gets all back".
I have patience and, in roulette, being able to wait in order to bet selectively is #1.
Quotewhen dealing with money management one of the things I consider "proper" is to cancel in a concentration of hits rather than the explosive "one hit gets all back".
This is why i like to calculate my next bet as if we were paid 52:1 instead of the usual 35:1.
Here is a comparaison between both :
52:1 35:1
Amount running profit Amount running profit
to bet losses to bet losses
1 -1 52 1 -1 35
1 -2 51 1 -2 34
1 -3 50 1 -3 33
1 -4 49 1 -4 32
1 -5 48 1 -5 31
1 -6 47 1 -6 30
1 -7 46 1 -7 29
1 -8 45 1 -8 28
1 -9 44 1 -9 27
1 -10 43 1 -10 26
1 -11 42 1 -11 25
1 -12 41 1 -12 24
1 -13 40 1 -13 23
1 -14 39 1 -14 22
1 -15 38 1 -15 21
1 -16 37 1 -16 20
1 -17 36 1 -17 19
1 -18 35 1 -18 18
1 -19 34 1 -19 17
1 -20 33 1 -20 16
1 -21 32 1 -21 15
1 -22 31 1 -22 14
1 -23 30 1 -23 13
1 -24 29 1 -24 12
1 -25 28 1 -25 11
1 -26 27 1 -26 10
1 -27 26 1 -27 9
1 -28 25 1 -28 8
1 -29 24 1 -29 7
1 -30 23 1 -30 6
1 -31 22 1 -31 5
1 -32 21 1 -32 4
1 -33 20 1 -33 3
1 -34 19 1 -34 2
1 -35 18 1 -35 1
1 -36 17 2 -37 35
1 -37 16 2 -39 33
1 -38 15 2 -41 31
1 -39 14 2 -43 29
1 -40 13 2 -45 27
1 -41 12 2 -47 25
1 -42 11 2 -49 23
1 -43 10 2 -51 21
1 -44 9 2 -53 19
1 -45 8 2 -55 17
1 -46 7 2 -57 15
1 -47 6 2 -59 13
1 -48 5 2 -61 11
1 -49 4 2 -63 9
1 -50 3 2 -65 7
1 -51 2 2 -67 5
1 -52 1 2 -69 3
2 -54 52 2 -71 1
2 -56 50 3 -74 34
2 -58 48 3 -77 31
2 -60 46 3 -80 28
2 -62 44 3 -83 25
2 -64 42 3 -86 22
2 -66 40 3 -89 19
2 -68 38 3 -92 16
2 -70 36 3 -95 13
2 -72 34 3 -98 10
2 -74 32 3 -101 7
2 -76 30 3 -104 4
2 -78 28 3 -107 1
2 -80 26 4 -111 33
2 -82 24 4 -115 29
2 -84 22 4 -119 25
2 -86 20 4 -123 21
2 -88 18 4 -127 17
2 -90 16 4 -131 13
Hi Artei,
Really a nice post. It has opened up a new direction for me in my thinking process. Thanks mate. Very interesting concept.
best regards,
LeBear
Very few understand this simple idea. BTW, the value 52 comes from this calculus : 35 * 1.5 = 52.5 rounded down we get 52. You can explore other ratio such as 35 * 1.75 or even 35 * 3. I have one system where i use 35 * 6. This last one can easily pass through 100000 spins without stress.
disk :-)
I vote for disk. Too many lose by not including 0 and 00 in their bets.
Quote from: Wildcard on January 25, 2008, 10:40:10 PM
I say NO DIFFERENCE. Many will disagree, but it all comes down to the numbers being set up in a different manner.
The numbers are there, the sectors are your choice. You can have all sorts of different arrangements for sectors, it just happens that you have 2 ways to directly visualize them... one on the wheel, other on the "carpet" ... ROFLMAO ....
You can even devise your own "layout", your own set of numbers (sectors) according to whatever concept crosses your mind. Think about it.
If you can test a simple system on sectors, make 3 tests ! One on the wheel, one on the table layout and one on a made up layout... Given enough trials, it all comes down to the same, IMHO.
Either [highlight]that[/highlight], or i am tottally wrong, which is also fine. [smiley=grin.gif]
I agreed