Can we establish some general rules for best systems or even "so called" posible HG?
Then we can evaluate each and every system what comes up.
Those rules must be followed to the letter.
No mechanical triggers or bet selection. No progressions. Everything contradictory will get bulldozed by the stochastic process. Have fun.
Those ideas are fine except for the "opinion" parts. Ken
I'm sure you mean "except". I'll put that down to a loss of composure, caused when you realised that a flat betting winning method is the only type of HG worth looking for.
lol, Funny, I usually spell quite well. One I would like to add BUT its only my opinion. Betting on an EVENT that WILL happen. Ken
Quote from: GogoCro on November 12, 2009, 03:10:16 PM
Can we establish some general rules for best systems or even "so called" posible HG?
Then we can evaluate each and every system what comes up.
Those rules must be followed to the letter.
I don't think there are many rules that you'll get us all to agree on.
Ron.
The first thing that I would look for is "why" should it work, or what is the main premise behind the idea. all too frequently people come up with ideas, but no clue about the reason it should work.
eg. "wait for 6 reds in a row and bet the opposite, using a martingale progression, and stop at a streak of ten reds"
this is not a good enough way to state the idea. If they were to say that the notion is that you dont see many streaks longer than 10 so by betting opposite after 6 in a row and stoppin at ten, there should be a hit most of the time. this would be better. It makes a good starting point for discussion. you can see where they are coming from, what their problem is , how they got to their solution, and their solution to the problem.
Others can then weigh in with their opinions, with the posters central hypothesis in the back of their minds, and explain why it will or will not work.
Herb used to get knocked all of the time for ruining threads, but if you look at his initial questions you can see that he always asked the same question - "why should it work" and more often than not people couldnt explain the answer, which made the whole proposal baseless, as if plucking the idea out of the air without even thinking as to what it was about or what the problem was.
A brief introduction can sometimes go a long way, get the premise sorted and you might be on your way to a winning method.
haha, nice one Shadowman. It's obviously obvious. The one thing people always ignore: logic. A logical method can hardly be disputed, where everything else...well, can, and usually is.
When reading boards on any gambling methods, I always look for the bankroll requirement to be stated. I find that methods posted without bankroll requirements, to not be well thought out.
Since I am not a believer of the HG. I assume that all methods will slam into a wall sooner or later. When I look at methods to try, I am looking for Bankroll, Stop loss, and win goals.
As the best method of winning is to use your head and get out of the casino, when you are a head.
IE: I Baccarat on an average shoe (a shoe that is running close to the %s of the game) At some time you will be up 5 to 6 units. This is the time to get out, if you stay the game will take it back. Are there shoes that will give you 10 units or more. Yes there is, but there are also shoes that will take 10 units or more.
Stating a bankroll and a stop loss is fine for me. I wouldn't be stating a stop win, though. That depends on several things, how easy the wins are coming, how many tables are running, how tired I am, how busy the tables get, the dealers, maybe even how hungry I get.
I don't think you should limit your wins, just your losses.
Ron.
Quote from: ShadowmanThe first thing that I would look for is "why" should it work, or what is the main premise behind the idea. all too frequently people come up with ideas, but no clue about the reason it should work.
While I agree with you 100% on this, I'm
not of the opinion that if a plausible reason
isn't given, then the method should be dumped. If you want to immediately trash any and every system which is proposed, then appeal to the maths (as Herb always does) which says that
no method which isn't based on physics can consistently win because of the house edge. Surely though, the bottom line is whether a long-term profit is made, and if someone demonstrates that this can be done (and others can replicate that success), then does it really matter whether they can spell out exactly
why it works? After all, there are many things in science and nature which are poorly understood, but that doesn't stop us taking advantage of them in the absence of a satisfying theory.
Take Mr Chips' Signum system for example. I don't think there would be many here who would argue that he has given a very logical explanation for why it should work (no offence intended Richard), and because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins, it's fair game to be "Herbed" (gambler's fallacy, nonsense, you are an idiot, etc..).
If results seem to show that there is some merit in a method, then isn't it at least worth investigating, regardless of whether there's a logical explanation? Of course, the results have to pass certain tests to ensure that it isn't just luck. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Phishalot on November 14, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
At some time you will be up 5 to 6 units.
Phishalot
I strongly disagree with this statement. Permit me some latitude...........
While running Super Roulette, using a certain system, I did a study to determine if this was true. The system does not matter. I was running Super Roulette on "virtual" which means it places no bets, but keeps an internal score of how the system is doing. The casino does not know which number would beat you as no bets are placed, so it cannot beat you intentionally. My original plan is to see if the virtual and real match. I digress.......
I have heard for years that "at some point you will be up" and I can testify and show graphs to the effect it just isn't so. There are times when you go up one unit and then straight down to infinity. There are times when you just lose your initial bet and go down from there. You are
never up.
I am using this robot just as you people use RX, as a tool to learn what happens over time. As I said, the system does not matter. As we know, all systems lose, so why should it? Patterns, waves, trams--whatever you want to call them--can be used to your advantage. BOT OR NO BOT.
Hope this is received well...
Sam
Quote from: Tangram on November 14, 2009, 01:03:20 PM
While I agree with you 100% on this, I'm not of the opinion that if a plausible reason isn't given, then the method should be dumped. If you want to immediately trash any and every system which is proposed, then appeal to the maths (as Herb always does) which says that no method which isn't based on physics can consistently win because of the house edge. Surely though, the bottom line is whether a long-term profit is made, and if someone demonstrates that this can be done (and others can replicate that success), then does it really matter whether they can spell out exactly why it works? After all, there are many things in science and nature which are poorly understood, but that doesn't stop us taking advantage of them in the absence of a satisfying theory.
Take Mr Chips' Signum system for example. I don't think there would be many here who would argue that he has given a very logical explanation for why it should work (no offence intended Richard), and because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins, it's fair game to be "Herbed" (gambler's fallacy, nonsense, you are an idiot, etc..).
If results seem to show that there is some merit in a method, then isn't it at least worth investigating, regardless of whether there's a logical explanation? Of course, the results have to pass certain tests to ensure that it isn't just luck. :thumbsup:
Tangram,
I am not at all offended, but have you got a handle on this darn Signum thingy, perhaps you could
then come up with a logical explanation :)
Best Regards
Richard
"because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins"
Someone answer this without smoke and mirrors: If you don't use past spins to make your decision, exactly what do you use?
You would need no marquee. You would just walk up to the table and place your bet. Other than relying on luck, what criteria do you use to make that bet? Let's say the table is empty and you can't even see what Joe is betting. The dealer is just standing there with his hands folded behind his back. Someone tell me precisely and exactly what their decision-making process is.
With the exception of those who say, "Oh, I can do it but you can't watch and I won't tell you how I do it." no one can answer this question in a logical, reasonable manner.
Or if they can, I'd love to hear it.
Sam
NOTHING WORKS: Place your bets . You either win or lose. If you win you got nothing to worry about and if you lose hopefully the bet wasn`t too high. :diablo:
Nathan Detroit
Nathan
I must compliment you! You have done something our U.S. politicians seem incapable of doing--you gave a straight answer!
Thanks!
Sam
When you get friendly and acquainted with the wheel,
after long nights battle with it,never swear or be cross with it,
be friendly and it will do all the work for you,it will show you
where to bet.You don't believe it,.....BUT IT IS TRUE.
...................................................Iboba 8) 8)
after long nights battle with it
That means you've been playing--battling! Chances are good you've written down numbers. Your example does not meet my criteria. It is smoke and mirrors!
Again, you walk up to an empty table with no marquee and bet. On what do you base your bet?
Mr. J has answered the question with his "no name" system. And he answered it before I asked it!
Sam
Sam mate,[/
F.T.L.2.C.W.C.C.
I think you will get it Sam............Iboba 8)
Quote from: iboba on November 14, 2009, 03:49:03 PM
Sam mate,[/
F.T.L.2.C.W.C.C.
I think you will get it Sam............Iboba 8)
Okay, pardon me and maybe I'm wrong, but:
Follow
The
Last
Two Clock
Wise and
Counter
Clockwise
Guessing here! :)
I give up!
:nono: :rtfm:
Please guys, post some rules..
like..
rule 1. bla,bla,bla
rule 2. ble,ble,ble
etc.etc..
This question you posted comes up every so often and the answers lead no where. All you will get are OPINIONS (I'm in that same group). An EXACT set of rules? Does not exist. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on November 14, 2009, 05:38:32 PM
This question you posted comes up every so often and the answers lead no where. All you will get are OPINIONS (I'm in that same group). An EXACT set of rules? Does not exist. Ken
But why not? I know there is lot of opinions.. but we can put some rules. In any way it will be interesanting to see
what will come up. If you think thats a waste a time, maybe, but everithing what is testing or study must have some rules to evaluate on, dont you think?
Ken
Your "no name" system has answered the question sufficiently. You walk up to a table and bet 0 and 00. There could be ten people or zero people. It could be the first spin the wheel ever made.
The answer is nothing! You base your first bet on nothing, or perhaps because there is a 0 and 00 on the wheel. I cannot recall anyone ever answering this question.
My proverbial hat is off to you!
Sam
"You base your FIRST bet on nothing" >>> Correct. Even if I get a win on 0 or 00 (example, 23 spins later), I still start over AGAIN on the 0 and 00 just as a jumping off point. Ken
This is an ingenius formula I have created myself, (and I couldn't do it alone...it came to me through hours of meditation...believe it or not) and to this date, I have never seen anything like it. Through the limited(random) tests I've done, this has beaten the house edge, with completely random numbers! It works, because your wins greatly outweigh your losses. Even if you were to bust out two or three times in a row, your wins would still outweigh the loss. This system truly works in the long term, because of this formula alone. Up until now, I had kept this formula a strict secret. Make sure not to deviate from this formula. Most progressions or martingale systems fail because they make you only a small profit for each win. By the time you bust, you have lost more than you have made. With this formula it is the exact opposite. Here is the formula---- 5, 10, 25, 50, 80, 145. ---- We also have a formula for betting on both zeros (or single zero, if using a europeon roulette wheel) at the same time. The (zero(s) formula is--- 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 25 ---- If using an american wheel, you will be placing your zero bets, on BOTH zeros at once. There is a convienent spot on the roulette wheel where you can place just ONE bet, on BOTH zeros. So, an example of your first bet, would be to place ONE $2 bet on the "both" zeros spot. I am explaining it this way so you won't get confused, and bet 2.00 on each zero. If either zero hits, you win back $36. The profit for your first bet would be $29.00 if either zero hits. This is because you have bet a total of $7 (5 + 2 = 7....36 - 7 = 29) If you are using a single zero roulette wheel, you profits will be even greater, although the drawback is, you have a less of a chance for the zero to hit.
Your formula of 5, 10, 25, 50, 80, 145 is to be used on a row or a group of 12 (Example, 1-12, 13-24, 25-36) in conjunction with your zero(s) formula. You will have the zero(s) covered at all times while betting with this system. So, an example of your first bet, would be $5 on group of 12(not just ANY group of 12...I will explain later, how to decide the best group...as well as how to fool your dealer), and $2 on the zero(s) Note that if you are playing a double zero wheel (which most of you will be) you will not put two $2 bets down, just one $2 bet on both zeros simultaneously(at the same time). If you lose your bet, you continue with the progression. Your 2nd bet is $10 on a group of 12, and $4 on the zero(s) $14 total for that betting session. $21 total so far. If either zero hits, you win back $72 for a profit of $51 so far. If your group of 12 hits, your profit will be $9 ($8 if you hit on the very first bet)NOTE- if playing single zero wheel, you still use this same formula. If neither zero, or your group of 12 does NOT hit, you move on to the third bet. You are betting $25 on a group of 12, as well as you are betting $6 on both zeros at the same time...for a total of $31 for this betting session. If either zero hits, your profit will be $56 and if your group of 12 hits, your profit will be $23. If you lose both bets again, you move on to the next session. Now, if you follow this as I recommend...what you will be doing is actually switching tables and casinos with each session. This ensures the casino won't catch on to you...because you will actually be losing money at each casino you play at, at some time or another. It's unlikely you would win every bet, so this ensures they won't catch on to how much money you are making. You will be PROFITTING from vegas (or wherever you live) as a whole, but winning and losing at each casino you play at. I will give you the order for which I recommend you goto each casino at the end of this section.
So, now we left off at our third session. Considering we lose our 3rd session in a row, we move onto the 4th session. You bet $50 on a group of 12 (keep in mind we don't just chose a group of 12 at random...we are going to incorporate strategies to make us more likely to win on that group, by not only betting with the dealer's signature, but by also betting against the highest bettors at the table, as they are the most likely to lose) At the same time we place our $50 bet on the group of 12, we also place an $8 bet on both zeros. Again, just so none of you get confused, this would equal out to $4 bet on each zero. (if using single zero wheel, you place an $8 bet on the zero) If either zero hits, your profit will be $34 , if your group of 12 hits, your profit will be $40. (not your win, but your PROFIT....this is assuming you've lost every bet so far)
If you lose again, we move onto the 5th betting session. In this session you will be betting $15 on both zeros at the same time, and betting $80 on a group of 12. Note I do NOT recommend betting on "cold" groups....just because you think they are due to hit. This is a losing strategy to try that. Dealers are known to make a group cold, due to their signature. You want to bet WITH the signature...more on that below. For this session if either zero hits, your profit will be $65. If your group of 12 hits, your profit will be $35. Remember, with every session, this is assuming you've lost every bet so far. IMPORTANT- Anytime you win, you go back to the start of the progression, INCLUDING if you win on the zeros. Don't forget this! This is what makes this system so powerful. A lot of times, you will be on your 5th or 6th betting session, and one of the zeros will hit. This saves you from busting out. As, you go back to the start of the progression for everything. So, you could technically go on a dry streak for your groups of 12, for longer than 30 sessions, and still never bust out. The zeros are crucial! This is why this system works so well on the double zero wheel. Considering you are using a single zero wheel, the profits will be much greater for each winning session, but with less of a chance for the zero to hit when you need it to. Don't worry, the system still makes excellent profits on the single zero wheel....I have tested it.
Now we move on to the 6th and final bet. You bet $25 on both zeros at the same time (or if you have a single zero wheel, you put down $25 on the single zero) as well as your $145 bet on a group of 12. Your profits if either zero hits, will be $75, and if your group of 12 hits, your profits will be $55. If you want to use an extra $5 for your bankroll, as I did a lot of times, it seems to work even better. Your profits for the zero would be $70 and your profits for the group of 12 would also be $70. So, that would simply mean to lay down a $150 bet on the group of 12, instead of $145. This can be easier chip wise as well. I will leave this desicion up to you. If you follow my method correctly as well as incorporate the tips and strategies in the section below, you will only bust out once in a while. By the time you do, your profits will have blown away the small $375 loss you have encountered. If you do bust, you simply go back to the beginning of the betting scale and start over. In order for this system to be 100% effective, you must also incorporate the strategies and tips I have listed below. Read on.
Tips and strategies to incorporate while using this system-
I recommend you play just a couple of bets at the most, for each table, unless you win...then play until you lose, then move on(meaning, lose a bet(s), NOT bust with your bankroll). You will still make a very good hourly rate, while using the system. The only drawback is that you will not be getting paid while traveling from casino to casino. You can still make $400 or more per day, easily with this system, for only about an hour of total playing time. Also you can do what I call "The hold one back" technique, where you wait for one session before betting to see if you had won or loss. Wait until you would of lost a bet, and then start the system. I do not recommend you hold back more than once, for two reasons. For one, you are just asking for a losing streak by doing that, and for two, you will miss out on potential wins and your profits will not be as great. Believe me, I have tested it! And not to mention, the later you get into the betting progression, the higher the profit you make! (As you can see from my examples)
OMG, I'll finish this on Monday.
HVN, I respect effort to write this, but man, why did not you open new thread in systems sections?
What have this with rules?? :swoon:
You maybe misunderstund.. main rules FOR any system so we can evaluate them based on that rules.
Not rules IN systems.
Quote from: GogoCro on November 14, 2009, 09:15:57 PM
HVN, I respect effort to write this, but man, why did not you open new thread in systems sections?
What have this with rules?? :swoon:
You maybe misunderstund.. main rules FOR any system so we can evaluate them based on that rules.
Not rules IN systems.
Thank you sir. I thought it would fit in this thread since this system is definitely the holy grail, and the best system ever devised.
To truly be able to say with confidence "I have beaten roulette", you need to overcome the house edge FLAT BETTING over a significant number of samples that will account for the ins and outs of the stochastic process. It is the bet selection that counts and the mechanics behind it. You need to know why it works. The method I'm working on now, I knew it was a rough principle which could be harnessed to beat the house egde flat betting, but until I began testing it I didn't know why it SHOULD work and wouldn't just be another slow loser. People will say progressions are a valid tool, like Mr J, who hasn't beaten the game but apparently still wins by incremental bets.
First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on November 14, 2009, 05:20:41 PM
I give up!
You shouldn't Sam mate.When you solve it you are in the winning chair.
Vic.---started ok but finished wrong
.................Just returned from casinom164 spins,of which toped 66,won 42 times
flat bet only....won 60 units....when lose- 3,when win 3+..............any idea now????
.......................................................................Iboba 8) 8)
Quote from: Number Six on November 14, 2009, 09:47:05 PM
First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run.
Or just maybe two step progressions max?
"First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run" >>> And I disagree. Ken
Mr J, yeah, I know you disagree. But the maths is on my side.
What I'm saying is, to be able to tell the world categorically that you have beaten the game, you have to have a flat betting method. It's all about recoverability and minimising the risk of ruin. You might win with progressions, but you'll never have a real edge, so you haven't got the thing cracked. I really don't want to get into a dispute about progressions, but in the first instance, the bet selection must overcome the house edge flat betting. Simple as. This is the real HG.
GogoCro, progressions are an illusion. It is the bet selection that's important. That is what makes the method a winner. Relying on progressions just means your process of deciding what to bet and when is critically flawed. If you have a flaw, nothing can iron it out.
Quote from: Number Six on November 14, 2009, 09:47:05 PM
It is the bet selection that counts and the mechanics behind it. You need to know why it works. The method I'm working on now, I knew it was a rough principle which could be harnessed to beat the house egde flat betting, but until I began testing it I didn't know why it SHOULD work and wouldn't just be another slow loser.
@No6
Now I don't expect you to reveal your way of playing or anything like that. But if you could explain the "why it should work" aspect of the above quote, I would be grateful ;)
BTW I agree with your flar betting comments.... :good:
"But the maths is on my side" >>> But my thick wallet is on my side. Back to the definition of "EDGE" I guess. I NEVER said bet selection is not important. You talk about "math" but the TRUE math guys will say that you can not get an EDGE in ANY way, shape or form. That covers YOUR way and MY way of play. Flat or progression. I assume you are not referring to AP (cough)? Ken
Mr J, no, I'm not referring to AP.
You can get a real edge. It is possible by adapting to the random flow *splutter*
Xman, it is a principle that theoretically can overcome the house edge simply by being used to place more winning bets than losing ones on the ECs. The principle is used, basically, to forecast deviations with a very high degree of accuracy. It "should" work, meaning you should win any session, as long as the sample of numbers conforms to normal distribution. That is the beauty of it, and sounds too good to be true. Feasibly the only losses you would ever suffer would be caused by human error or some irregularity in the distribution of numbers. The principle seems solid - I have adjusted it so it's is literally impossible to make a wrong decision - though I have only just begun to test this optimum strategy and can't yet vouch for its robustness. Like Wendel, I'm making world history, hahaha. No, seriously, it's promising but it's just an idea and needs analysing thoroughly to determine whether the principle works statistically or by coincidence.
"and can't yet vouch for its robustness" >>> When you CAN vouch for it (meaning, NOT today) feel free to post the rules of it so I can begin testing, thanks. Ken
Ok,
so far we've got rule 1) Flat Betting...from Number Six.
And rule 2) Never Give Up... from TwoCatSam.
Those aren't the only rules listed but I'm a good sport, I'll play along. Ken
Seriously, this ongoing research into the roulette Holy Grail is and always has been an academic exercise.
At the end of the day, if you gave me $3000 dollars and said, "Here, take this and go to the casino and play roulette for 3 hours a day for the next 5 days", without a doubt, I would be with Mr J on this one. I'd go in there and play my favourite big fat progression system that virtually guarantees me a big fat profit over 15 hours of play. I would not go in there and try to go +1 per session, or -6 per session, or whatever.
Oh, I know the math. That's why I'd rather risk the bankroll on the progression with the big profits, rather than the up a few down a few dribble.
Of course you still need a reasonably sound working strategy.
Thats what I said. I hate topics like this cause there is no 100% answer. If there was, we would all be making 700K per year. The answers are OPINIONS, nothing more. Ken
Bombus, you would only do that because it isn't your cash and probably wouldn't care if you lost it. Yeah, you'd take the risk, and you might win. If you were UNLUCKY you'd lose. That's all you've got: luck. The profit, of course, is proportionate to the size of your bet. If you played the ECs, what is wrong with aiming to win 5x$100 units in each 1 hour session? When all is said and done it doesn't matter what you decide to play, all bets equate to the same thing. Remember that Mr J is the only man in the present and in history to be a regular winner with progressions.
@ No.6
There were a lot of big words in your reply, so I will take another look when I'm a bit more with it.....
Thx for getting back to me :good:
Quote from: Number Six on November 15, 2009, 01:37:12 AM
Bombus, you would only do that because it isn't your cash and probably wouldn't care if you lost it. Yeah, you'd take the risk, and you might win. If you were UNLUCKY you'd lose. That's all you've got: luck. The profit, of course, is proportionate to the size of your bet. If you played the ECs, what is wrong with aiming to win 5x$100 units in each 1 hour session? When all is said and done it doesn't matter what you decide to play, all bets equate to the same thing. Remember that Mr J is the only man in the present and in history to be a regular winner with progressions.
@ Six.
No, I'd do it with my cash, and I do.
And check out the red bit!... That is exactly right! With a well thought out attack, an up as you lose progression requires you to be UNLUCKY to lose. For me, that is better than being LUCKY to win... yeah, semantics I know... but it's true.
You are right about proportionate betting, and bet equality though. Except that bet equality probably belongs in the realms of a 'statistically significant sample', and not a short, real life roulette session.
Don't get me wrong, I love flat betting, and as far as number crunching systems goes, it is the absolute acid test.
As for the Holy Grail, my rule or requirement would be that the bet selection must include at least one non-rigid, or floppy component. Presently, I still maintain that that could be the transient and repetitive building up and breaking down of what you termed 'number societies'.
OK, that's fair enough. But the bet selection of progression systems lack the logical premise Shadowman mentioned in an earlier post...that is why a progression is needed, it's used to ride out deviations from what is expected. If you were betting the pleins and you could find a way of increasing your hit rate, then, yeah, that'd be it. Well, in a nutshell, that's the idea, isn't it? To win more bets than you lose...that is the real grail, because it's bombproof.
Xman, it's just a theoretical principle for forecasting trends. Theoretical because it hasn't yet been tested properly and might only be suggestive of a coincidence. The maths, though, says if you don't win you will break even. It has amazing potential.
Quote from: Number Six on November 15, 2009, 11:37:51 AM
Xman, it's just a theoretical principle for forecasting trends. Theoretical because it hasn't yet been tested properly and might only be suggestive of a coincidence. The maths, though, says if you don't win you will break even. It has amazing potential.
Ok No6
Could I ask were this principle has come from ?
As in a book, website, article & solely your grey matter ?
Just interesting not looking for you to spill the beans....
Thanking you in advance.... 8)
First rule is never talk about rules!
Second rule is - read the first rule!
btw, I think chicken was before egg.
Tangram
I cant disagree with what you say, and coincidently after writing my post I saw a thread which was exploring what could be a potential anomaly in the game. Although, the author did explain what the anomaly could be and how they were trying to exploit it by testing the waters. So I consider that my post would need some revision.
I think that what I was getting at, is that sometimes its nice to see, in simple terms where the author of a method is coming from so that an understanding of what they are trying to do forms the springboard for discussion/testing etc. rather than a random plan that seems to be plucked out of the air, which so many "systems" appear to be.
but you do have a point in what you say.
Hi Shadowman,
QuoteI think that what I was getting at, is that sometimes its nice to see, in simple terms where the author of a method is coming from so that an understanding of what they are trying to do forms the springboard for discussion/testing etc. rather than a random plan that seems to be plucked out of the air, which so many "systems" appear to be.
I agree. It's helpful to have the underlying premise of a method explicitly stated (even though the reasoning might be flawed), especially if there are a lot of rules and there don't appear to be any obvious connections between them. Lack of coherence makes it difficult to understand a lot of the systems which are posted, and this puts people off even attempting to understand them.
Quote from: xman1970
Ok No6
Could I ask were this principle has come from ?
As in a book, website, article & solely your grey matter ?
Just interesting not looking for you to spill the beans....
Thanking you in advance.... 8)
The basic premise of the principle came from someone I know outside the forum. I'm still trying to figure out why it should work, and why it's logical, though I do have a rough idea and I'm hoping things will become clearer while I'm testing it. The other bits and pieces I picked up from a couple of members here, and something Steve H says stuck in my mind...increase the accuracy of predictions. So that's what I tried to do, but in a non-physics way. I'm amazed by the hit rate it can achieve, but the question is: is THAT a coincidence? There is no way of knowing for sure what will happen in the future, but I do believe there is a way to forecast with a high degree of accuracy how the next set of outcomes will relate to the last.
Ok Thx again for taking the time to get back to me No.6 :good:
For what you have stated previously in this thread IF you can find out "why it should work" you will be on your way.. :yahoo:
All the v best with the testing.... 8)