Work with me people........
When you have a crossing 0 v 1 or 0 v >1, you have two data points on a graph. A hit on the 0 group causes two things to happen: the 0 decreases in number and the others increase. Two data points move; one up and one down.
With 0 vs >1 only one data point will move; the 0. The >1 is static. So we have 0 vs static.
Why can't static be any data point one below or even with 0? 0 v >1; 0 v 2; 0 v >2; 0 v 3; 0 v >3? All are exactly the same.
If I'm to continue with this G.U.T. study, I must have some logic and uniformity. Otherwise, I'm just throwing darts.
I realized I have whipped this horse before.
I am working to establish some hard-and-fast rules of my own to test this thing. I will use the basic premise (lines must cross) and add my own ideas to that.
I guess that's why I like the 4Selecta and my Chicco/murph; no decisions to make except for when to quit. I want to reduce the G.U.T. to the same rigidity and see what happens. If that is not possible, this system/method may not be for me. I hate the angst of the wrong decision!
This is only part one!
Sam
Sam,
As for myself, I play track2. I don't see the use of 0 vs 1>, 0 vs 2>. Why?
What's the difference between 0vs1> and 0vs2? Oke a number hit twice, it will move to the column 2. Than we have 0vs2. Let's say a number hit's 3 it will move to 0vs3.
Track 4 only confuses me my friend. I think track 2 is the most clear version to play.
I know I haven't answered your question, but just wanted to share with you.
Jur
This is a big difference between 1 and >1 or 2 and >2.
I am going to establish some firm rules--as close to winkel as possible--but that suit my fancy.
I will post them.
Sam
Rule #1
Crossings. While this may go against winkel, I must define a crossing within the logical constraints of my mind. So they are:
0 v >0 which is always 19/18 and we pass on this one.
0 v 1
0 v >1
0 v 2......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 10/10
0 v >2......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 10/10
0 v 3.......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 10/10
1 v >1
1 v 2
1 v >2......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 8/8
1 v 3......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 6/6
2 v >2
2 v 3
2 v >3......must be exactly the same number, i.e., 5/5
Rule #2
I may bet any crossing (except 19/18) at any time. However, I may not bet two at once. If a double crossing appears, I will always bet the leftmost crossing.
Rule #3
I will bet each crossing until either 1) The crossing disappears; 2) I bet the number of bets that will not exceed 35, i.e., 5 numbers for 7 bets or 6 numbers for 5 bets or 17 numbers for 2 bets and so on; or 3) I win before either of the previous happen.
Rule #4
I will jump back when there are no 0 v, 1 v, or 2 v crossings within sight.
Not a rule:
I will give due consideration to the flow or "waves" of the numbers.
This list may be amended at any time.
Sam
I totally agree with you on that my friend.
Any personal way of betting is allowed, because it makes you sure of your bets.
As you watch always what´s going on you will see, which of your personal settings change from good to bad.
so mend your bet-rules and you will keep winning
br
winkel
All.......
I think we can agree on one thing winkel wrote: Lines have to cross. At some point 2 will exceed 1. Now, the question is...can we find a way to predict, with some accuracy, where that will occur?
Suppose you are looking at 1 v >2, my own idea of a crossing. Here's the way it looks:
[table=,]
One,,,>Two
10,,,8
10,,,9
10,,,10
[/table]
Since the 1 is static, he is not being hit. >2 is growing because 2 is being hit. This is a rare occurrence, but it seems to have a high win rate. I know I'm getting into the idea that the past effects the future, but consider this: Lines must cross and since the 2 has hit three in a row and the 1 has rested three in a row, who is more likely to hit? I'll vote for the one over the two. A hit on three is just a loss. A hit on two kills the crossing.
I'm also thinking of merging two methods to create a double-advantage method of betting. I know I'm way out here, but I still feel there is merit to finding two good methods and merging them.
Anyway, this is a fun study. I'm in it for fun, so I'm winning!!
I'm a professional fun-haver!!
Sam