The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory

[winkel]

Thank you Winkel for this 'system'. I noticed madzup played 0 - 1 >. So this is also a possible bet? Thought 0 just could be played against 1.
Live play takes some time. Has anyone tried it with RNG?

The possible bets are always

x vs >x
or
x vs x+1

It doesn´t matter if you play live or RNG

br
winkel

[madupz4]

Hi ernesto,

to play a trigger three times :
17 - 17 on 0vs1
15 - 15 on 0vs1
13 - 13 on 0vs1

but: bet as long as a bet can equal or give you a win
17-13 bet twice
12-10 bet three times
9 or less you can bet 4 times

Winkel,

I know it's not advised to bet 17 more than 3 times but theoretically why couldn't we bet:

17-17 on 0vs1
17-16 on 0vs1
17-16 on 0vs1

[winkel]

-17
-17 -34
-17 -51
-17 -68

-17
-17 +36 +2

-17
-17
-17 +36 -15

-17
-17
-17
-17 +36 -32

total risk 68 thats ca. 30% of bankroll
If you win in 4th you still have 2 losses to equal

If you win in third
the next win in 1. wil equal

Instead of this and the risk to run in a 4x loss
you better start at a second trigger an loose with total -68
because the chance to loose the second trigger is less than to loose a 4x in a row

othewise it depends on:
at which spin is the trigger?
what happend just before the trigger?

is the spin before 25 you will loose at 80%
were there 4 or more hit of "0"s you will loose at 80%

[gizmotron]

winkel, I checked out your system. It offers no advantage other than being a system that works while its working and not when it's not. It's an interesting notion that while counting down the numbers that have not hit yet there is an expectation that there is a kind of normal amount of them that will act in a high expectation for brief periods. There is a sort of consistency when there are from 12 to 8 to go down to 4 to go. I think a progression might crack that too, most of the time.

The guy that said that the law of thirds applies to this method was right. It might have been Herb. It's just a matrix contraption that counts on triggers to make guesses. It's obvious to me that you are engaged in an intense discussion on when to use a trigger and when not.

I wrote a computer program to check when each descending amount of numbers that had not yet hit would produce the most winners verses amounts bet. I was surprised that 17 was not a good spot to start. 8 down to 4 was the best, lowest risk combination. That's what I was interested in learning about the concept.

Thanks for the ideas.

Mark

[madupz4]

winkel, I checked out your system. It offers no advantage other than being a system that works while its working and not when it's not. It's an interesting notion that while counting down the numbers that have not hit yet there is an expectation that there is a kind of normal amount of them that will act in a high expectation for brief periods. There is a sort of consistency when there are from 12 to 8 to go down to 4 to go. I think a progression might crack that too, most of the time.

The guy that said that the law of thirds applies to this method was right. It might have been Herb. It's just a matrix contraption that counts on triggers to make guesses. It's obvious to me that you are engaged in an intense discussion on when to use a trigger and when not.

I wrote a computer program to check when each descending amount of numbers that had not yet hit would produce the most winners verses amounts bet. I was surprised that 17 was not a good spot to start. 8 down to 4 was the best, lowest risk combination. That's what I was interested in learning about the concept.

Thanks for the ideas.

Mark

So you're saying waiting for an 8-8 0vs.1 trigger to 4-4 shows the best chances of winning?  That's the kind of information I have been seeking.  How much more efficient is it to wait for 8-8 vs. 17-17?

[gizmotron]

madupz4  - "So you're saying waiting for an 8-8 0vs.1 trigger to 4-4 shows the best chances of winning?  That's the kind of information I have been seeking.  How much more efficient is it to wait for 8-8 vs. 17-17?"

I'll use my knowledge of hot number observation to give you a clue. There are almost always four numbers that tend to by more active than the others and three or four that are less active than the others to the extreme. So I thought that 19 to 12 was going to be the best intervals for catching the most wins in the shortest times. The problem is at those numbers you are betting more numbers for each bet. The risk of building up larger losses is reduced if you bet less so you need to wait until you have less numbers that have not hit yet. What's interesting is that the last numbers to fall still keep chugging along and hitting. You must understand something. You are betting on the coldest numbers in the temporary data stream to favor you. It's the fact that they do hit and when it gets down to the four-to-go section you are only betting four units then. The risk is lower. That low risk offers you a chance to research a progression. At least I'm interested in it that way that is.

You will have to relate what I just said to that charting trigger stuff that you mentioned. I won't waste my time trying to understand it. I'm not attempting to prove it doesn't work. The discussion is doing a fine job of that. I just wanted to power test the concept in general. I'll probably end up with giving up on the progression too. If I want to guess patterns I'm going to do that visually on stuff that is common occurrences and simple to figure. It makes since to have fun while you are gambling. It's fun to see a pattern forming right before your eyes. It's fun to see dominances.

[theneophyte]

its taken me a few hours to understand this - its great. thanks very much.[smiley=dankk2.gif]

[smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

[winkel]

winkel, I checked out your system. It offers no advantage other than being a system that works while its working and not when it's not. It's an interesting notion that while counting down the numbers that have not hit yet there is an expectation that there is a kind of normal amount of them that will act in a high expectation for brief periods. There is a sort of consistency when there are from 12 to 8 to go down to 4 to go. I think a progression might crack that too, most of the time.

The guy that said that the law of thirds applies to this method was right. It might have been Herb. It's just a matrix contraption that counts on triggers to make guesses. It's obvious to me that you are engaged in an intense discussion on when to use a trigger and when not.

I wrote a computer program to check when each descending amount of numbers that had not yet hit would produce the most winners verses amounts bet. I was surprised that 17 was not a good spot to start. 8 down to 4 was the best, lowest risk combination. That's what I was interested in learning about the concept.

Thanks for the ideas.

Mark

You are wrong.

The guy that said that the law of thirds applies to this method was right.

Sorry neither nor you are right. If you look at my post "view at statistics" you will see, that the law of the third" hits only at about 6-7% of all 37spins-section!!!!!

I do play therefore all 37spin-section also them not being "Law of the third"

It's obvious to me that you are engaged in an intense discussion on when to use a trigger and when not.

of course! look at Markov! How will I recognize the "hidden Sequenz" when I´m not watching, what is going on?

I wrote a computer program to check when each descending amount of numbers that had not yet hit would produce the most winners verses amounts bet.

This sounds to me that you didn´t do it right.
Did you check having a crossing against any other combination?
Did you test how many of them were hit in the previous spins?
Did you use the "Jump Back"-Option with it´s Rules?

I´m sure you didn´t. This is not rushing through and knowing all of it.

br
winkel

[winkel]

So you're saying waiting for an 8-8 0vs.1 trigger to 4-4 shows the best chances of winning?  That's the kind of information I have been seeking.  How much more efficient is it to wait for 8-8 vs. 17-17?

High madupz,

If you play it this way you will wait for weeks for a trigger and you will loose. If you you so, don´t blame it on the strategy or me.
This is absolutely not the intention of this.

All you do this way, do it on your own risk.

br
winkel

[gizmotron]

winkel,

This sounds to me that you didn´t do it right.
Did you check having a crossing against any other combination?
Did you test how many of them were hit in the previous spins?
Did you use the "Jump Back"-Option with it´s Rules?

I´m sure you didn´t. This is not rushing through and knowing all of it.

I'm sure you have defended your point of view very well. You are correct that I didn't confirm your techniques in my simulation. I ran a simulation on the nature of randomness while tracking descending occurrences of yet to hit numbers. This was the original notion that I got from you. I still think that it's very interesting.

There is no crossing mechanism that can point to the moment in time that will position the nature of randomness that a signal has occurred, one that means you have found significant importance that is. This is a mechanized trigger based contraption that has one feature that gives it it's possible success. I agree with the notion of selecting patterns in order to make choices. Your exhaustive belief in your idea is also admirable. Your notion and direction may prove one day to be the right track but guessing on patterns may actually be the more important finding.

That's just my two cents.

I'll stay out of your discussion.

[Tucktuckster]

well - i have played bits which skirted around the edges of this. saw this strategy and a lot clicked for me. for that i owe winkel a lot.

how do i play - largely as winkel says. i have a few tweaks. i'll explain some. if after 45 spins the sleepers signal say at 13 v 13 due to the ones hit once hitting and if the sleepers have slept for some time, i will play per rules. however - if on 2 losses, the 13 have missed say 7 times in a row - I will carry on playing and will ratchet up stake since they will hit.

if when i am playing, the 1's are running away with things and are say 17 with 19 zeros and 1 2, and if no 1's have hit for say 5 spins, i'll play the 1's. they will hit.

i tested tonight on rng for ease playing massive stakes starting at 10p per number. anyway after 2 hours on the multi player table, my £50 start was at £87 and i think my biggest bet having had to use an increase in stake was 35p.

there were no drawdowns of note and the 35p one was when i was being a bit careless and was up £25.

not exactly big money - but i'll take it. i'm thinking that i will eithdraw the £37 and play again tomorrow.

the way the rng played - it was like clockwork and as efficient if not more so than the real wheel. i dont know if it will continue, but i may as well see. Winkel says RNG is same. Its time to test. I have suspicions about the rng i am playing - so if this wins on it after a week, it will prove a lot to me....

[TwoCatSam]

winkel

Heard on TV tonight that the Germans invented the fastest shifting automobile transmission in the world. 

Just thought you might like to know that perked my ears up because of what you said.

Sam

[winkel]

Todays RNG-spins show something interesting.

They proof
1. That is not recommended to play too long without Jump-Back
2. That crossings are sure, even if you decided to bet the wrong Group

Code Select Expand


33 0 -16 16 11 10 8 2
34 26 nr 9 16 10 11 9 2
35 24 9 16 9 12 10 2
36 28 9 15 10 12 10 2
37 6 9 15 10 12 10 2
38 11 9 14 11 12 10 2
39 9 9 13 12 12 10 2
40 15 rr -4 13 11 13 11 2
41 28 nr 21 13 10 14 12 2
42 23 21 13 10 14 11 3
43 23 21 13 10 14 11 3
44 25 21 13 9 15 12 3
45 15 21 13 9 15 11 4
46 26 21 13 9 15 10 5
47 15 21 13 9 15 10 5
48 24 21 13 9 15 9 6
49 22 21 12 10 15 9 6
50 19 21 11 11 15 9 6
51 31 21 11 11 15 8 7
52 18 21 10 12 15 8 7
53 25 21 10 12 15 7 8
54 2 21 10 12 15 6 9
55 20 21 9 13 15 6 9
56 15 21 9 13 15 6 9
57 24 21 9 13 15 6 9
58 28 21 9 13 15 5 10
59 11 21 9 12 16 6 10
60 10 21 8 13 16 6 10
61 35 21 7 14 16 6 10
62 13 21 7 14 16 6 10
63 6 21 7 14 16 6 10
64 15 21 7 14 16 6 10
65 8 21 7 13 17 7 10
66 13 21 7 13 17 7 10
67 2 21 7 13 17 7 10


1. column no. of spins
2. column spin-result
3. group to bet on (r=0;n=1; .r= on numbers of row before -> numbers that were n in the row before are bet with "nr"
4. total bankroll
5. R = "0"
6. N = "1"
7. F = ">1"
8. F2 = "2"
9. F3 = "3"

As you can see there are suddenly a lot of crossings possible.
So it is difficult to decide which to play.

spin 39
bet 0 vs 1 13vs12 or
bet 1 vs >1 12vs12

Thoughts to decide
0s are falling
1s are rising
>1s are equal in the last 3 spins

bet-decision on tendency 0 keep falling

spin 40
we´ve lost
tendency is turning
0s = equal
1s = falling
>1s = rising
new bets possible
0 vs >1 13-13
1 vs 2 11-11

if we decide on turn of tendency we bet 1vs2
1vs2 is also lower risk plus higher return

spin 41 hit and total of 21
13   10   14   12   2
here we have a kind of a roller coster
"0"s have to fall 1 to get a new crossing with "1"
"1"s have to rise 2 to get a crossing with "2"
"1"s have to rise 4 to get a crossing with ">1" (this is a sum that cannot fall only rise!!!)
"2"s have to fall at minimum 5 to get a crossing with "3"s

the "0"s are very slow since spin 25 only 5 in 16 spins. Both is possible: the slow goes on or it is a sudden fall of them.
What you bet might be wrong so better jump back!

But let´s see what is going on further down.
spin 48
in the last 7 spins nothing really happened to present a crossing.
because there were too many "2"s (due to binomial distribution) they did what they had to do: produce "3"s (4 numbers bcame "3" in 6 spins)
now we have a crossing 9-9 in "1"vs"2"
but "0" didn´t change since 10 spins
and "1" are low between two Highs ("0" and ">1")
Would you bet the "1" vs "2"?

we bet the 9 "1"s an loose two times and the trigger is gone!

13   9   15   9   6
12   10   15   9   6
11   11   15   9   6

and a new trigger appeared
"0"vs "1"
but we had just 3 "0"s in a row!!!!!!!
we bet "0"

11   11   15   8   7

we loose in the first spin and a new trigger appears "2" vs "3"
Which to bet?

a) we stay on our bet
next spin wins (result -11-11+36=+14)
10   12   15   8   7

b) we change bet to "2"
next spin we loose
2. spin we win

10   12   15   8   7
10   12   15   7   8
result -11-8-8+36= +9

c) we stay on first bet and go to second trigger after win or stopp-loss
-11-11+36-8+36=+42

next spin new trigger "0" vs "3" (here ">2"
54   2      21    10   12   15   6   9
win
55   20      21    9   13   15   6   9
and trigger still alive
even if not recommended to rebet a trigger that just won:

56   15      21    9   13   15   6   9
57   24      21    9   13   15   6   9
58   28      21    9   13   15   5   10
trogger died because higher than "0"

As I said: it is like playing chess
but even if youre decisions are wrong you won´t loose a fortune on playing this game

br
winkel

[bobco]

I have tried both with RNG and live sessions. In the beginning RNG worked good but then it dropped, so I think it's better to stay with live play.

[winkel]

as you can see in the TESTING-AREA it works everywhere the same way

br
winkel

[winkel]

-