HOW TO WIN AT ROULETTE *THE BALANCE OF 5*

[Spike!]

>>Fender and Stackbundles,
I've got news for you...A dozen and column both contain 12 numbers each>>>


In your screwy world, Herb, maybe not in theirs. Quit being so close minded. 

[moles40]

just lost 5 out of 6 games over at jebet

It doesn't matter what system I use,I can never seem to get ahead,at least it wasn't real money.

I don't know how you win so consistently Fender-which casino are you playing at.

[Spike!]

I don't know how you win so consistently Fender>>>>


Sure you do. Think about it. Thin real hard...

[Bayes]

Give it up Fender. Even stackbundles won't be stacking any bundles with this system. 

[gizmotron]

Yes duh I knows that spike. But do you know that they do not produce the same results for THE BALANCE OF 5. NO SIREE. I know coz I did my homework 11 years of it.

Magical beliefs. After 11 years all you have are sorry excuses formulated to bring yourself comfort. Superstitions won't substitute that you are saying that all the wheels around the world must be biased to fit your polar opposite roulette systems. Your conclusions are superstitions only. Don't worry though. This is a normal stage of gaining real world experience. Some day you will drop these flimsy excuses. You should congratulate yourself on "attacking the rare pattern" as a system though. Your problem is you don't see that attacking the same pattern must fail eventually. I admit that it's a very rare pattern that kills your zone. It's not a very rare pattern that kills your magical beliefs though. Someday you will be experienced like many of us. Keep up the good work.

[Bayes]

If you're going to play this system, get ready by stacking some bundles of arse-paper! 

[superman]

You should congratulate yourself on "attacking the rare pattern" as a system though

Totaly agree, all is not lost Fender just don't get stuck in a rut mate, seems now your the last man standing in the ZONE look for other patterns try to find something that works on ANY wheel, keep at it.

[atlantis]

Hi Fender,

I am playing balance of five a different way:

waiting for doz/col to miss 4 times then betting that qualifier ONLY on the next spin (where both a doz and col qualified, I chose the doz only)

So I bet on Spin 5 ONLY

I am using prog: 1,2,3,4 = 10 units.

If I lose I bet 2 units on the next qualifier on Spin 5 only
If I lose I bet 3 units on the next qualifier on Spin 5 only
If I lose I bet 4 units on the next qualifier on Spin 5 only

If progression loses I restart/repeat the progression at the same level:  1,2,3,4
This happens - but you can recover.

========
exit points:
1) Lose 3 consecutive progressions - STOP = -30
2) Lose 3 out of 4 progressions at any time STOP
3) When profit target reached
========

Not stopping at any target points in my test (I know you wouldn't do that) I won
54 units in 258 spins without reaching an exit point. Not bad.
Test was on real numbers from wiesbaden for yesterday - table 3.

Fender, can you tell me your advice, opinions or feedback on this strategy?

A.

UPDATE: 2nd session played on table 8 : result = -14 (stopped after 3 consecutive losing progressions LLL)
UPDATE: 3rd session played on table 9: result = +15 (target ; in 28 spins - no lost progressions)
UPDATE: 4th session played on table 4: result = +15 (target ; in 35 spins - no lost progressions)

[atlantis]

Hi Fender,

Thanks for info.
UPDATE: After my tests using the FIVE variant today on 4 tables at wiesbaden = +70PTS profit (3WON; 1LOST)

Interesting.

A.

[atlantis]

I am liking this Atlantis PM me with more details about the opperation of the strategy. This sounds fantastic I want to test it this weekend, 

Fender,
Yes. It's worth a trial, I believe. ALL the info for the operation of it is in earlier post, Fender. There's nothing more to add really... I don't wait for any TRIGGERS, just use the *exactly* 4 miss rule. Use both doz and cols - when one qualifies bet for ONE spin (5) only. If win - reset progression. If lose - continue prog on next qualifier whatever it is, doz or col.. If 2 qualifiers take the DOZ. If both qualifiers are DOZ or both COL wait till there is a clear qualifier.

A. 

[atlantis]

Here is example Fender of what I was doing:


Casino Wiesbaden 13 MAY 2010 - Table 9
=============================
[table=,]
Spin,Number,Type,Bet Unit,Win,Loss,Net,Unit Bal.,Bet Layout
1,17,No Bet,0,0,0,0,500,
2,10,No Bet,0,0,0,0,500,
3,1,No Bet,0,0,0,0,500,
4,17,No Bet,0,0,0,0,500,
5,25,Bet,1,3,-1,2,502,1 : 3rd Dozen **WON
6,24,No Bet,0,0,0,0,502,
7,24,No Bet,0,0,0,0,502,
8,3,Bet,1,3,-1,2,504,1 : 1st Dozen **WON
9,4,Bet,1,0,-1,-1,503,1 : Column B
10,14,Bet,2,0,-2,-2,501,2 : 3rd Dozen
11,15,No Bet,0,0,0,0,501,
12,9,No Bet,0,0,0,0,501,
13,24,No Bet,0,0,0,0,501,
14,12,Bet,3,9,-3,6,507,3 : 1st Dozen **WON
15,23,Bet,1,3,-1,2,509,1 : Column B **WON
16,23,No Bet,0,0,0,0,509,
17,28,No Bet,0,0,0,0,509,
18,27,No Bet,0,0,0,0,509,
19,15,Bet,1,0,-1,-1,508,1 : 1st Dozen
20,14,No Bet,0,0,0,0,508,
21,13,No Bet,0,0,0,0,508,
22,24,No Bet,0,0,0,0,508,
23,32,Bet,2,6,-2,4,512,2 : 3rd Dozen **WON
24,31,No Bet,0,0,0,0,512,
25,16,No Bet,0,0,0,0,512,
26,31,No Bet,0,0,0,0,512,
27,19,Bet,1,0,-1,-1,511,1 : Column C
28,20,Bet,2,6,-2,4,515,2 : Column B **WON
[/table]

+15 ; 6 winning games (no lost progressions)

A.

[TwoCatSam]

A programmer who once visited these pages confirmed this:  You cannot/need not confuse an RNG that is programmed to beat you.  Why?  The program merely looks at the numbers you did not cover and selects one of them!  If you bet 18 numbers, the RNG has 19 selections with which to beat you!

Think about it!  You are trying to outsmart a computer who already knows where you've bet and has the power to select any number on the carpet!  If I knew where you bet and had the freedom to select any number, I could always beat you, too!

I'm truly amazed at the number of people who cannot seem to grasp this.

Sam

[superman]

Sam, I have to disagree with you, my reason being, any system tested live/rng OR on RXtreme fails at the same rate, does that mean rxtreme is also programmed to beat us? heck a year ago before I heard about rxtreme I created my own pretend layout using php with its version of rand() and even that beat me, I honestly don't think RNG casion softare is rigged, sure there maybe dodgy ones but any reputable company/casino won't and doesn't need to cheat.

Have you ever noticed when you start playing the first 5, 10 or 15 minutes go well then the wheels start falling off?

Have you also noticed when using rxtreme the initial couple of hundred spins do well with most if nor all methods?

[TwoCatSam]

fender1000

Again I will spell your name correctly.

You seem to believe you can judge infinity by a few spins.  Trust me, you cannot.  You are looking through a tiny window and seeing a tiny picture. 

If you won or if you lost any challenge (which you run from) I would be the first to say it is not a fair test and we cannot judge your systems/ideas by it.  Why?  It can never be large enough to sample infinity!  It simply can't be done.  Sooner or later, dispersion will come your way and wipe you out.

Please refrain from calling me names.

Sam

[GLC]

Hi Fender,

Thanks for info.
UPDATE: After my tests using the FIVE variant today on 4 tables at wiesbaden = +70PTS profit (3WON; 1LOST)

Interesting.

A.

A,

I want to join with Fender in saying that I appreciate all the effort you have been putting into this system.  I had been testing only betting the 5th spin with my penthouse progression and was having excellent results, but not good enough to get that excited.  This angle of tracking both dozens and columns may be what gives this the extra push it takes for many of us to get serious about using this as a viable betting strategy.  It seems to make enough units/spin to justify playing without risking the house.

Still need to be cautious because I'm sure there are some clumps of losers that can cause a pretty serious draw-down, but like you said, looks like it recovers nicely.

I am optimistically pessimistic which is a place I haven't been for a very long time.

Once again thanks.   I know it takes a lot of time to type up your results in such readable and usable format.  I know that many more members appreciate your work but are just letting a few of us voice it.

Cheers,  George

[GLC]

-