Dumb question but anyways.....

[Spike]

The worst case scenerio is that you will get 2-3 losses of the full progression very close together. It will happen, it has to happen, you just never know when. Its like the sword of Damacles hanging over your head, it will fall eventually, you just never know when. I can't play like that and neither can you, Ken. Thats why you're always looking for reassurance in all these threads you start. You want somebody to tell you its OK. I don't blame you, I'd be doing the same thing. You know in your gut what will happen eventually.

Poker players can go a year without getting the cards. Most go thru periods of months without getting them at times and its a living hell. But it goes with the territory.

I know very little about sleeping number play. But if it were me, I'd pick 2 numbers that have hit recently and bet they wouldn't sleep. I'd be a lot more comfortable betting for a repeat than for a number to wake up. In roulette, things tend to keep doing what they've been doing for a while, than to change a whole lot.

[bombus]

Yep, I agree, dodge the sleepers.

[Mr J]

The thing is (I'm not starting an argument) I would get slammed in the past for posting......tracking, playing furthest back etc. So now I'm not doing that (this method) and I'm still getting slammed. lol Thats why I started a new thread regarding, what is the definition of a sleeper? Do you think I started that thread cause I was bored? You have to re-read my first post for this thread. 7.9 was my QUESTION?  Ken

[Spike]

How likely is it that you would miss picking two different numbers for all 150 spins? On every new spin you would pick two new numbers.

[Mr J]

I am HALF to blame Spike and I admit it. I have not (yet) laid out the rules for the method so it is difficult to comment. I kind of wanted opinions first regarding 7.9 and talking about what a sleeper really means.   Ken

[kav]

Hello Mr J,

First let me tell you that your post are the post I read with very much interest.
For four reasons.
1. You never tell us something we know already (like that the house edge is 2,7%)
2. You never say something completely non constructive (like "there is no way to beat the house edge, give up")
3. You never said you have a sure way to beat roulette but didn't explain which it is.
3. You have always something sensible to propose.
4. You put your money where your mouth is.
5. I'm in the progress of devising a system for which idea came from your systems (I will email you when ready)

Now about your question.
7,9 roulette cycles (1 cycle is 38 spins for american roulette) without hitting a number is very low probability. So, yes, it's good. But not impossible.
[note: the 400 spins without hitting a split (cheval), mentioned by winkel, IS impossible and I dare anyone to show me such a permanence from any casino.]

The probability of a specific number not hitting in 300 spins is (37/38)^300= 0,00035. Which means that every 100.000 times you try it, you will lose 35 times. This also means that if every time you win, you win $10, and every time you lose you lose $10K in 100.000 tries you will make ($999,965 - $35,000)= $649,965
[note: The probability for any number not hitting in 300 spins is 0,00035x38= 0,0133. Which means that every 10.000 sessions, there would be 133 sessions, in which one number will sleep for 300 or more spins. But these figures are irrelevant if you chose your number randomly. They become relevant if you follow specifically the number that is sleeping]

However, if my calculations are correct, the 8 cycles unhit concept, would be more safe (even better odds), if you bet even chances. For example that in 16 spins there would at least 1 RED. 

I'd love (like Winkel said) to see this new progression of yours that can stand 150 spins without hitting a split or 300 without hitting a number. That would be something! You said something about betting only every 3 spins. The spins you are not betting cannot be considered part of the progression because if the number hits while you are not betting, this will be a lost session. Only betting spins count.

Best regards,
Kav

[Mr J]

Thank you for the compliments.  "The spins you are not betting cannot be considered part of the progression because if the number hits while you are not betting, this will be a lost session." >>>  (I'm not sure if I should throw this in the systems section?) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PROGRESSION...... Ok, I can agree with that. The progression itself is not 300 (one number) or 150 (two numbers) I hope we can still be friends.

I have used this method 4 times live and have BEYOND GREAT results, that, you can quote me on. My NETS were $910, $980, $880, $1,250. Basically betting TWO UNHIT numbers, side by side on the wheel (double zero wheel for myself). My progression goes up to 55 steps. I usually start on the 00, 1 but it makes NO difference! Say the 17 hit, cross it off.  We now skip the next 2 spins (no betting) cross off whatever hit. Pick again 2 unhit numbers side by side on the wheel, base this on nothing please! No due numbers or hot or cold numbers etc., ONLY unhit numbers.

No win? Repeat the process. Skip 2 spins, bet, skip 2 spins, bet etc. On a win, start over fresh, nothing crossed off. NOTE: An example, lets say the 24 and 13 are crossed off. You must ALSO cross off the 36. The BEST case of dragging the progression is 165 spins, for TWO numbers! BUT, lets say I get down to the last two? We now do NO MORE skipping. Keep betting on those two for the rest of the progression. My average for that happening is once for every 7 wins. When that does happen, it drops from 165 to 135 total spins (my average).

So far, 135 POSSIBLE spins is my WORSE case situation. ANOTHER NOTE: Lets say the LAST unhit numbers are the 6 21 33. No more skipping spins. Alternate betting between the 6 21 and the 21 33. I use to play a similar method but why switch Ken? I did the same method for unhit splits on the layout. However, there were too many problems of too many possibilities left unhit. EXAMPLE: Lets say the last unhit numbers on the layout were >> 11 13 14 15 17. That 14 would screw everything up because it controlled the other 4 numbers for a split.

In total, thats 4 possible bets as opposed to NOW, (6 21 33), its only TWO. I feel it narrows it down MUCH easier. This might be my long term method (knock on wood) that I use, its very promising. The 2 downsides.... expensive BR and if roulette is not boring enough, we only bet 33% of the time. Using nickels for my progression, my NET wins are damn nice, worth the wait! Questions?  Ken

[Mr J]

-