Power Winner Splits System.

[coolpaddy]

Hi Proofreader,

There have been lots of tests run and excel spreadsheets designed for automatic testing. The poor copy posted here gives Crillevs variation, the original post advised waiting for 3 consecutive hits, there is also the option of playing a combination of both - this would be my preference.

The ABC splits died out due to lack of consistency. There are profitable runs and some not so profitable, overall not strong enough. Maybe there is scope to test and improve it, not with hard cash!

I personally do not play these splits anymore and would not recommend them now. The original post was a theory on a bet selection/strategy which had shown merit in test and play, it was a work in progress posted for discussion and development. This is a very misleading post and this is the last time I will visit it. If you need honest and knowledgeable comment and data check my earlier reply.



                                                             Best regards



                                                     
   

[17black]

Hail Coolpaddy!!!!!!!Nothing but nothing pisses me off more than Plagiarism. To Kingspin I say thumbs down. Please render your apology.

[davo]

Yes well said Cooldaddy. Your paragraph applies to all bet selections which rely on money management, progressions and other maskers of flaws to simulate possibilities of merit. I guess if searching for these adds meaning to your life then go for it but the road is long with the inevitable dead end. You may as well use the most illogical simple method at roulette because it will lead down the same road and requires no elaborate testing.

[TwoCatSam]

Davo wrote

I guess if searching for these adds meaning to your life.......

You know, it actually does!!  Believe it or don't!

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"  Robert Browing

Sam

[Kingspin]

Power winner splits cost me a small fortune.  We gotta have tests run.

This method is not the simple as abc this is played different to simple as ABC . Ok the numbers are the same but the method is different. Anyone who reads your simple as abc will see the difference. My method is if your group misses you spin 5 times without betting then re track .  This works better in my tests that i tried.

[coolpaddy]

Kingspin,

Try a little honesty for a change. I have copied part of reply 37 from Bobbybobby's TJunction post just a week ago. These are your words

Your siMple as ABC system that you trumpet on  the well known "the other forum" is actually very good, I win money on that system so I state my honest opinion , that I find your  simple as ABC method is good .  Infact I think it very good.


                                                                      CP

[TwoCatSam]

And the above quote was why I asked for it in the next post!!

Sam

[davo]

Fancy applying such a profound quote from Robert Browning to the seedy, greedy world of casino gambling. I wonder if he would have spent hour upon hour mindlesssly pursuing roulette patterns and stop-loss rules. Would we still have the benefit of his way with words?

[Kingspin]

King,
do you use the numbers on which you play on to track next bet?
I mean, do you play countinually if last two progression numbers belong to same group?
Thank for share this system
Ice
Yes i would do that ice , if say you was betting on  Group A and and it missed A  & hit say C twice i would bet on C.

[Boo_Ray]

what about if 3 was a repeater, which is group A and B...?

[Boo_Ray]

-