i've noticed that, flat betting on ECs, the game evens out in the long run. For example, if I play only Red for 100 spins, one unit per spin, the result is usually even (50 wins/ 50 losses).
So, if a predominantly Black streak (say, 7 blacks in ten spins) occurs, what if I pretended I was playing Red for that 10 spins, then begin playing Red--but for ninety spins instead of a hundred----the game, theoretically, should have around 43 blacks remaining. And around 47 reds remaining.
If I play only Red for the remaining 90 spins, shouldn't I come out with a least a couple wins ahead of black in the end?
I'm just asking.
All this is based on what I call "The law of BALANCE".
New Ken. 8)
Now you are using common odds against themselves in a logical way. What does it do if you can bet on just a few black streaks to win too? Then you are even further ahead in you 100 bets.
Thanks, Gizmo, and of course I'll explore what you say.
First, though, I want to test if my idea is workable (in theory it sounds so to me), and the frequency of wins per 100 spins (90, really).
If I'm assured of being up only 2 or 3 units in the end, then I can build from there.
But it almost sounds too simple to be true, doesn't it.
New Ken. :whistle:
Quote from: New Ken on September 27, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
But it almost sounds too simple to be true, doesn't it.
Usually the best things are...
New Ken there is no law of balance. This is probably the 2nd thing you learn about roulette after you've tried the martingale. I can't believe Gizmotron is endorsing your theory, and he tells us the "world is going to change" because of his amazing breakthrough. He's just proved to us he doesn't know jack sh*t. :sarcastic:
Mike, I don't mean an exact balance, but have you tried flipping a coin, say, a hundred times?
The number of times heads and tails more or less balance themselves out are far greater than an overly lopsided result (example 70 heads/ 30 tails).
What do you say?
New Ken. ???
Nonsense.
Guys, get educated about the game before you lose real money.
Visit the wizardofodds.com
You are looking at a short term solution for a long term game. Makes little sense. But if Gizmotron endorses it, then it must be a genuine winner. :sarcastic: Such strategies have been tried, tested and failed for many years, centuries even. The fact that some continue to believe that the solution is waiting to be found in 2010 or 2011 amuses me.
Quote from: New Ken on September 27, 2010, 03:29:58 PM
Mike, I don't mean an exact balance, but have you tried flipping a coin, say, a hundred times?
The number of times heads and tails more or less balance themselves out are far greater than an overly lopsided result (example 70 heads/ 30 tails).
What do you say?
New Ken. ???
I say it won't and can't work. But by all means give it a try, it's the only way you'll be convinced.
Gee, I'm almost ashamed I suggested the thing ::)
New Ken, think of it this way.
What happened in the 500 spins before the last 100 spins? Who says things will even out in a hundred spins?
For instance in the 500 spins before the last 100 spins you might of had 60/40 red black 57/43 red black 67/33 red black and 50/50 red black. NOW in the last 100 spins you might of had 30/15 red black. So you would go for? Red?
This is the think....it looking at the previous spins black might start catching up at a helluva rate. while you think that you are on a trend you might of missed the train. Simply because really speaking you never know where you are in the bigger picture.
Killroy was here
Quote from: Killroy Gentz link=topic=17031. msg121442#msg121442 date=1286358834
Simply because really speaking you never know where you are in the bigger picture.
Exactly.
You'll never know that UNLESS you look at future 'events'.
This is the only way to increase the accuracy of your predictions.
How do you see something that hasn't yet happened. . ?
Simple.
Study mathematics.
HAHA Perry U are full of shit :lol:
Rather than instantly dismiss things as unworkable, I like to have a play around with them.
I have spent some time looking into the virtual loss scenario and it is not a complete no hoper.
I decided to play a few sessions using the trio-play MM strategy combined with virtual losses.
My bet selection was playing between 4-6 streets. Rather than play through a continued string of losses, I waited for a win before commencing betting. Sure, this can still throw up a string of consecutive losses but I decided to give this way a try. I was pleasantly surprised. The losses outnumbered the wins by a bit and I still came out ahead. Using the trio-play MM which is more or less another version of oscar's grind never escalated into anything too severe either. It was a grind but that does not really bother me. Something along these lines should be considered a long term strategy as opposed to a more volatile method looking for quick profits.
QuoteRather than instantly dismiss things as unworkable, I like to have a play around with them.
I have spent some time looking into the virtual loss scenario and it is not a complete no hoper.
I decided to play a few sessions using the trio-play MM strategy combined with virtual losses.
My bet selection was playing between 4-6 streets. Rather than play through a continued string of losses, I waited for a win before commencing betting. Sure, this can still throw up a string of consecutive losses but I decided to give this way a try. I was pleasantly surprised. The losses outnumbered the wins by a bit and I still came out ahead. Using the trio-play MM which is more or less another version of oscar's grind never escalated into anything too severe either. It was a grind but that does not really bother me. Something along these lines should be considered a long term strategy as opposed to a more volatile method looking for quick profits.
If you feel that you need to test it then you need to read more about the history of the game and build on the knowledge of others that have long since traveled down this road. You should be able to look at the system and instantly dismiss it as a loser without having to test it at all.
-Herb6
It comes down to "the only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions". If you understand how roulette can be beaten, and what gives the casino an advantage, then you better understand what will or wont work.
I created nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html) so people start off in the right direction, but perhaps because it isnt the simplest way of trying, most people keep looking for an easier way.
Steve,
What ever happened to the Dublinbet test you were going to do?
Are you still going to prove that you can win with it?