A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted. I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.
The system was described in this way:
Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)
If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.
If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.
Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.
If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression
The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.
A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.
I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit. I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in. When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)
Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit. I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units. This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).
This inspired me to test further. I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers
A while ago I was looking through the old forum and I came across a system that mr. j posted. I wish to make clear that everything about this system needs to be credited to mr j and not myself.
The system was described in this way:
Take a list of the 37 numbers of the wheel.
Bet on any three that have not yet appeared ( first bet you can obviously choose any three numbers)
If no win, wait one spin then pick another three that have not appeared, crossing off any number that has appeared, whether played or not.
If no win, wait two spins and then play any three unhit numbers.
Continue, increasing the wait time by one spin each time.
If there has been no win and there are only 3 unhit numbers remaining, bet every spin until either a win or the end of the progression
The progression he used was:
1unit x 9 spins, 2 units x 6 spins, 3 units x 4 spins, 4 units x 3 spins, 5 units x 2 spins, 6 units x 2 spins, 7 units x 2 spins, then 8,9,10,11 and 12 units by 1 spin each
for a total of 33 bets.
A second variation was to wait 4 spins between each bet, rather than an increasing number.
I tested the second variation, waiting 4 spins between each bet because it made a neater spreadsheet.
I decided, rather than choosing any three numbers that had not hit, I would choose the three lowest numbers that had not yet hit. I imposed this rule to prevent any bias creeping in. When you have access to all future numbers in a list, it is all too easy to convince yourself that you 'would have chosen those three numbers' because <insert any old reason here> - especially when choosing those three numbers will prevent a bust of the progression. (it might just be me who does this, but I think not!)
Testing started, and there was the innitial surge of excitement as I went well past the point where I had expected a bust and was up over 3000 units in testing.
Then, of course, the turnaround came and my balance dropped 2000 in vary short order.
Prepared to move on and test something else, I did what I always do as a last step when testing, just for curiousity I reverted all bets to flat bets of 1 unit. I found that by removing the progression, I only depleted the peak by 1000 units, and decreased the quick loss by 1500 units. This left the progression version at +1000 units and the flat bet version at +2500 units over 8000 spins (only 25% actually played remember).
This inspired me to test further. I built an msaccess database to test large numbers of spins and ran ALL of the amburgo numbers that Lohnro gave me through the process ( yes Lohnro, all 3million plus).
This took about 2 weeks, with the databse completing a file of numbers and importing the next one. From the 1998 file, there was a -6978 result flat betting.
1999,2000-5 files all generated results between +17000 and +38000 flat betting.
I also tested the progression at the same time. The progression results were within 2000 units of the flat betting each time, but the drawdown over the course of each year was invariably much greater.
My questions are:
Does anybody remember this system?
Did anybody else test it?
Is anybody willing to a: test my program to see where I've stuffed up or
b: write something independantly to test this
I have played this way at dublinbet for about the last two months and am up 500 units.
There are two things I have observed by playing this:
1 It is a slow grind. If you only play a couple of sessions, you can easily walk away with consecutive losses.
2 It is boring. 1 bet every 4 spins, you need to watch your coffee/tea/beer etc intake while you wait.
Alright, that's about it. It's up to you guys if this topic sinks or swims.
Cheers
The problem with thesesystems is the drawdown what usullay happens to me is when i test they go well and then fall away but maybe not past point of no return
But playing thr method knowing it most likely wins but getting that hefty drawdown at the beginning can be most depressing that is the trouble with volitile methods can ewe smothe it out a bit even to point of not winning so much but not losing so much either can we trade of volitility for smoothes and ease of playing it the is the $64000 question
Regards Natural
Excuse me!!!
Did I read that correctly?!
This guy tested 3mil spins and the system proved profitable. I have never read that about any other system.
And none cared to use it in real life or comment?!
Iwonder, MrJ... Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 metods?
rjeaton's help....
Quote from: Bazeegar on September 10, 2009, 01:28:09 AM
rjeaton's help....
Haha, glad to hear I'm actually helpful :)
I'll throw something together for you guys in a bit. I'm just in the process of coding a TON of systems that people paid me for, so I've got to take care of them first. As soon as I'm finished though, I'll start on this.
Quote from: rjeaton1 on September 10, 2009, 03:31:19 AM
I'm just in the process of coding a TON of systems that people paid me for
Possibly, the only way to make money off roulette :biggrin:
KAV just to say a chap called Simon on the other forum has a system that has NOT lost in 5000000 spins unfortunly he needs £1000 for it played with a £2500 bank .Cheers Colin
Colin,
He should take a loan NOW!!! and go play it for real.
Could you please provide a link?
Kav if you go to a forum called nolinks.Roulette (nolinks://nolinks.roulette) Forum . net Roulette System Forum and go to the section calledGambling Systems for Sale you can read about it there its a good forum but not in the class of the 1 we are on at present its in a different league LOL Colin
Quote from: kav on September 09, 2009, 11:29:40 PM
Excuse me!!!
Did I read that correctly?!
This guy tested 3mil spins and the system proved profitable. I have never read that about any other system.
And none cared to use it in real life or comment?!
Iwonder, MrJ... Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 metods?
Hi Kav.
Yes My Friend You did read right.
I know Iwonder very well We are close Friends.
Everything He says is true.....and Yes He has been very successful with this System.
I have just sent Him a Message Via a Mobile (cell phone) text...letting Him know that there is some interest in this His old thread for You.....(I did this as a Courtesy to You Mate)
He is an absolute great person Mate.....and I am sure that when He gets time he will Respond to You.
But I happen to know that His Logistic Business is going Gangbusters at the moment.
It has exploded in a good way for Him...He is flat out keeping up with all the demand.
He is now working upwards of 16 hrs per day and has His Family to look after as well.
But rest assured Kav He is one of the best people that anyone could ever wish to know and when he gets time He will reply to You Mate.
Lanky.
"I wonder, MrJ... Any further comments?
Mr J why did you abandon this method? Did it produce more losses than profit? Hey, you don't even mention it in your top 3 methods?" >>> Thats how I roll boys. Something of mine doing well? I'm not surprised. I do remember this method, no doubt. The thing is, I was IN THE MIDDLE of so many other NEW ideas, I think I put it on a shelf and then forgot about it. lol It happens. Maybe I'll pick back up on it again. Ken
Guys
Yes I play this way and yes I make money playing it. There are downsides. It is BORING. 1 bet every fifth spin and waiting around can drive you nuts. If you're playing at a B&M casino, take a book or a newspaper if you are allowed. If not, try to find a spot where you can watch sports on a screen or something. If you have a time limit on a session, don't start, because you can garauntee that when you have a time limit, your sesssion will go for 100+ spins. You will have drawdowns. You can play multiple sessions in a row that end in a loss. If you can't bear the idea of walking out of your casino down for maybe a week at a time, then this is not for you. You will have weeks where you break even. Playing long for not much, or nothing. You will have weeks where you play losing session after losing session. You will have weeks where you play for a few wins and some losses, a little ahead, a little behind. And then you will have weeks where every time you play you're done within ten spins and make a bucket load.
And at the end of it all, over a year, you'll have made 0.25 units for every spin you have witnessed.
I must point out a couple of things:
1. Everything I have said is based on my experience only. Yours maybe very different. If I have been lucky, then I accept that. I haven't come up with any mathematical proof that this works. So I'm happy to take what I've made as luck.
2. This is definately NOT a method of play for the casual player. It is one of the biggest grinds I have ever come across. Having said that, I believe that a casual player would benefit in that the damage to a bankroll in a single session is very limited.
3. There is no reason that this won't work on RNG because there is no reason (to my knowledge anyway) that this should work at all. Having said that, I personally don't play RNG. I play online with live wheels.
Ok, I think that's all I can add. If you wish to pursue this further, then I would be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Cheers
Iwonder
OK People
Mr J invented it; Iwonder testifies for it--
Lanky has said when Iwonder speaks, you better listen.
I've copied the whole thread in case--well, I won't air the words.
I'll walk the puppy around the block!
Sam
"This is definately NOT a method of play for the casual player" >>> Thats alot of my methods. It does not bother me but you are right, some will stay away from it. They LOVE the action and BIG spins, wild crazy times etc (LOL) Count me out....I'll do it the slow way. Ken
Sam,
You forgot to give me credit for discovering the thread one and a half years after it was buried. :good:
kav
I am sorry about that! You know, I don't even look at the dates on some of this stuff. Going to the optometrist on the fifteenth. Maybe he can help me. Well, that's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it!
Thanks, kav, for digging this out of the "Cold Case" files.
Folks, Mr J invented it, kav dug it up and Iwonder vouched for it. Maybe we should look at it.
Sam
You left some people out! Wait untill the "negative, you cant win without an edge" guys have their post. Ken :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mr J on October 05, 2009, 05:48:10 PM
You left some people out! Wait untill the "negative, you cant win without an edge" guys have their post. Ken :thumbsup:
Hi Ken.
Trust Me on this one Mate...
Iwonder will have some answers for them Cobber if they do....and they just might not like what they get told either.
I am one of the very few that know how this was tested over various different ways and how many Millions of spins were involved in that testing of each different way.
I also know WHO supplied Millions of spins to Iwonder as well. (We will leave that as a Surprise for now)
So this was genuine and the spins were not just thought of or made up by Iwonder.
@Sam
Gees Cobber You dropped Me off that list Quicker then I can pass wind.........Lmao.
Good On-Ya Mate.
Lanky.
Not makin' any lists anymore. I expect to hear from the Devil himself any minute sayin', "Hey, Bud! That's my wheel!"
Hi Lanky
Hope you're doing well and prospering.
Sam
Just pick any 3 numbers, the results will be the same. Forget all the voodoo..
.......and there's one now. :punish:
Ok Spike
If you wish, go and pick any three random numbers and bet them every fifth spin over 3 million spins and then post your results. If you want an argument you have come to the wrong place.
I won't give you one.
As per my previous post, I have no solid proof, mathematical or otherwise, that this should work. I stated very clearly that I am prepared to put my success down to luck that may not be repeated by other people.
By now I have a clear idea of how this method of play tracks in terms of bankroll depletion and the expectations I have of my overall profit. I had already, long ago decided that if my winnings, over the course of a year, slipped under .12 of a unit, then I would shelve this method and take what I have made so far. This has not happened yet. If this is the case, I make a further committment to post here in this thread, in 36 point font the following:
DO NOT USE THIS METHOD. ALL OF MY WINNINGS ARE DOWN TO LUCK - YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME.
So anybody who wants to tell me, or others that this method is a load of bollocks, can hold their fire, because I will be there first to avert disaster for anybody that may 'fall prey' to another bodgy method.
For anybody who is looking at this thread, I have the following advice:
1. Test
2. Test
3. Test
Do not listen to me, or Mr J, or even that old codger Lanky.
Listen to yourself
Trust your own advice
If you don't have an understanding, leave the idea alone until you have gained that understanding.
This is especially pertinent in the kind of gains you expect to make out of any 'system'.
Don't listen to what I've said
Have the data that you have produced staring back at you off the page you wrote - and then make your own decision.
Cheers
Iwonder
Thanks for all you have done. Is it possible for you to share your excel sheet here?
Hello Iwonder,
Thank you for your post and your willingness to share your testing results and your success in actual playing. Mr J, thanks for your original idea. The most important thing in life is knowing what we are actually doing.As long as we are happy and successful, ignore what non believer says or think.Successful people and those who want to be successful will know deep inside, you are telling the truth. We appreciate your kindness and sincerity.Wish you and Mr J great success.
Regards
sniper
Hello kav,
Credit goes to you too. Sorry, I missed you out in the above post.It's better late than never.
Regards
sniper
Quote from: sniper on October 06, 2009, 07:30:32 AM
Hello kav,
Credit goes to you too. Sorry, I missed you out in the above post.It's better late than never.
Regards
sniper
And what about Lanky ;D Iwonder is back here because of him....
Baz
It was not a spreadsheet I created, it was a full blown program I created to test results. Firstly, no it is not possible for me to post it because it is too big and it is my property.
Secondly, there is no point in posting it. It will not help you in the future, it will only allow you to run the same test, with the same numbers as I have already done. It is for you to find your own numbers and run your own tests, as you see fit, to satisfy yourself one way or the other.
This is not about 'tough love', or find your own path. The rules are spelled out very clearly at the top of this thread. I just don't see the point in others running my test, under my construction, with my numbers. The end result here is: I am satisfied with where I am. I have shared my satisfaction and the path that led me to that with everybody. If you wish to take my satisfation at face value then good luck to you. What I would advise everybody to do is gain their own satisfaction. If that comes from testing large amounts of numbers, as it did for me, then do it. If it comes from meditation and reflection, then do that.
But do it your own way.
As I said, you have the same information as I had on day one. I have shared my experience, which should ONLY lead others to consider this method worthy of further study.
I hope this clears up my position
Cheers
Iwonder
Hi Iwonder
Thank you for bringing this thread back up to speed..Im sure people will be testing this and, I hope, bringing their results to this thread.
Thanks again mate
The Spiders Kiss
I respect your decision.
I wanted to run my numbers through the excel program and I myself can not program it hence I sought basically the blank format. But anyways I respect you and your decision. You have been generous enough to share your results and I thank you for that.
Regards Bazee
Hi,
I´ve read this thread with a lot of interest since the results of the testing over 3 mil spins are really amazing.
However i have a question about the way the system is played i would appreciate if someone could help me.
As i understand it, you start by playing any 3 numbers (since none has hit in the begining), then you wait 4 spins and play again 3 unhit numbers. Now suppose you hit at the second try, do you keep the record of hit and unhit numbers and play again 3 unhit numbers or do you start a new record with all numers unhit ?
Thanks for your help.
Quote from: Spike on October 06, 2009, 12:40:49 AM
Just pick any 3 numbers, the results will be the same. Forget all the voodoo..
Spike
I do so love voodoo. Surely you're not saying that is a worthless idea, also!
Say it ain't so!
Sam
Sam and sniper,
I was joking of course, but thanks for your kindness anyway.
Mane,
Good question. I believe MrJ proposed it in the first way, but Iwonder tested it with the later (starting from scratch).
Hi Friends,
Sorry guys just back from a Project, 2 days ago I saw your post. It attracted my eyes. So wrote a program and used Random.Org 80K of numbers.
Results are very bad, Not sure How you are gaining.
Simulation 1:- I went +2000 one time, but gradually it come back to -3771.
Simulation 2:- I went +1700 one time, but gradually it come back to -4599.
Simulation 3:- I went +700 one time, but gradually it come back to -2631.
One thing to note though, out of 20 tries, I got only onetime +6K(only one simulation put in positive).
Overall not very good. But it was a good try from your end.
Regards
Hi Allin .
Did You start off with 0-1-2 or did You just pick any 3 numbers >???
Lanky.
Hi Lanky,
My logic picks 3 lowest un-drawn numbers.
Example :- 0,1,5,7,8,9,19,34
Myselection is 0,1,5
min(lowest1), min(lowest2), min(lowest3)
Just to maintain consistency, i did that way. Let me know if you want to change the selection criteria.
Regards
Just to add one more point
"I tried waiting 4 spins between each bet".
Regards
Quote from: Allin on November 12, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
Hi Lanky,
My logic picks 3 lowest un-drawn numbers.
Example :- 0,1,5,7,8,9,19,34
Myselection is 0,1,5
min(lowest1), min(lowest2), min(lowest3)
Just to maintain consistency, I did that way. Let me know if you want to change the selection criteria.
Regards
Hi Allin.
Mate its My understanding that the past numbers that have come out Before You have played has no bearing on this system.
For example lets say You walk into the Casino or Log on-line at say either 2pm or 8pm.
What numbers that have come out before We have our first bet is irrelevant.
We would still place the bets on 0-1-2.
And if We did and either of those numbers hit We would immediately bet 0-1-2 again.
QuoteJust to add one more point
"I tried waiting 4 spins between each bet".
Regards
OK so by that I am assuming that You went.
Bet 0-1-2
Nb
Nb
Nb
Nb
Bet 0-1-2 (IF none of them have been hit on the 4 no bets)
Which would be right.
I have contacted Iwonder by phone and He is going to have a look at this thread later.
His business is running at too fast a pace at the moment to answer right away.
Your Friend.
Lanky.
Hi Friends,
Tried that approach as well, if it is 0-1-2/minimum of 3 undrawn numbers results are same.
Also one more point to note, waiting 4 spins between bets, or 1 spin
between bets make no difference as well.
Regards
I found this method quite interesting, Intead of betting on 3 numbers straight away though. I keep spinning without betting until there are 3 numbers that have not come out. Then I bet on those 3 numbers with the Prog 1 U x 9 S, 2 U x 6 S, 3 U x 4 S, 4 U x 3 S etc. I find you don't lose as much earlier on.
Quote from: Allin on November 13, 2009, 08:44:25 PM
Hi Friends,
Tried that approach as well, if it is 0-1-2/minimum of 3 undrawn numbers results are same.
Also one more point to note, waiting 4 spins between bets, or 1 spin
between bets make no difference as well.
Regards
Hi Allin .
Mate just to make sure We are both on the same page here ...
I am talking about a Single Zero wheel.........are your findings on that wheel ??
If so Maybe We could do a test here on the Forum.??????
Your Friend.
Lanky.
Hi Guys
Thanks for the interest in the thread.
Firstly: Noteboom:
Don't play this way. It hurts. I've tried it and it failed. You will wait a long time and then get stung.
Secondly: Allin
Thanks for your testing. I will bear it in mind. There are only two points I will make.
1. I have never played this on RNG, or tested it on random.org numbers. So I can't comment on it's success or otherwise within these realms. I have only ever tested this on real numbers and only ever played it on live wheels.
2. I am glad that you have tested this to the extent that you have. I hope you have received a result that you believe in and can make your own decision from this point. My decisions have not been altered by your findings, but that is my perogative. I have already, within this thread, explained that I have no proof, other than a sample test, that this works and have further publicly posted my personal stop/loss point at which time I will announce to this board my intentions of quiting this method of play.
I wish you nothing but success in the future, and I am sure you will find it - with your tenacity and obvious skills - you will come up with something that works for you.
Thirdly to Lanky:
Cheers mate you're a true soldier of Christ.
Cheers
Iwonder
Ok,
I have made a little web program to test this and on RNG it has failed all the time. 10. 000 spins, 100. 000, 1. 000. 000 spins. I all failed. Tried everything posted here.
If someone could provide a txt file with a number on every line i can run those too to see if it makes a difference.
Quote from: RayManZ on November 16, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
Ok,
I have made a little web program to test this and on RNG it has failed all the time. 10. 000 spins, 100. 000, 1. 000. 000 spins. I all failed. Tried everything posted here.
If someone could provide a txt file with a number on every line I can run those too to see if it makes a difference.
Hi Mate.
Iwonder has already stated that it has always been played in real Casino's or on real wheels using single Zero wheels.
This was all done above board with the testing and the 3 million spins that it was tested on in the first place were not Iwonder's own numbers.
The numbers were supplied to Iwonder by someone else.
All different types of testing was done before real money was bet and won with this method.
Lanky.
I've read this thread probably four times and the best conclusion I can come to is that iwonder's system worked perfectly for him and not at all for anyone else, possibly because of some cosmic alignment on his part. Unless no one ever tried it on a live wheel, which would surprise me, given his testimony. Am I alone in this? Is there some other less flakey explanation for iwonder's success?
Ever curious and fascinated,
Sam