General rules for possible HG

[xman1970]

@ 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 

[bombus]

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'.

[Number Six]

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.

[xman1970]

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....

[GogoCro]

First rule is never talk about rules!
Second rule is - read the first rule!

btw, I think chicken was before egg.

[shadowman]

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.

[Tangram]

Hi Shadowman,

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.

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.

[Number Six]

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....

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.

[xman1970]

Ok Thx again for taking the time to get back to me No.6  

For what you have stated previously in this thread IF you can find out "why it should work" you will be on your way..


All the v best with the testing....

[xman1970]

-