Another GUT, me thinks

[insidebet]

 Roulettefanatic has posted something on July 3 under <<bet selection>>  called <<Very interesting method...>>.

I have tested this flatbet method for 27 sessions of 100 spins each.  The total is impressive. Almost +1200 units, flatbetting thank you very much.

Just wondering if anyone else has tested this.  And if anyone is capable of coding this method in RX.

I don t know if 2700 spins is enough to conclude anything.  Probably not.  So, Rx would be very helpful.

I have played this method in a real casino, and won 5 out of 6 sessions so far.

Insidebet (the only way)

[WhiteKnight]

how exactly are u playing this?  I can code it how you are playing it, when I have a chance, if it looks worthwhile.

[insidebet]

Hello,
Under this very section (bet selection) go to thread called "Very interesting method I found,seeking your opinions guys..".  It was posted by Roulettefanatic on July second.

It is clearly explained and simple to play.
I would ignore the 1x and play only the 2x, 3x ... up to 6x.  I suppose you could play the 1x also.  If you code this, it would be nice to have the option of playing the Xs you choose.


BTW, I tested two more 100 spins sessions.  Results? +303!!! and +96 units.

Insidebet

[shetty]

Can you please post one session so that I can test exactly the same way.  Insidebet, when you get serious, I take interest 

[shetty]

Do you keep on betting till a hit at each stage? Also, how could you get get more than 35 X 6 (as there are only 6 betting opportunities in 100 spins and suppose you win at first spin with one unit bet) units in a 100 spin session?

For me it's bit confusing.  I understand that if you finish one stage then you do not bet again in that stage and move to next stage right?

[insidebet]

Shetty,

Did you read the post entirely?  It is very clearly explained.  There even is a spreadsheet at the bottom where you heve a sample of over 100 spins.  But I will try to explain it here in my own words.

On average (Roulette fanatic says it is based on several hunded thousand spins), there will be a repeat # on spin 12.  If you look at the table provided, you will see 1 beside spin 12 under column 2X.  Right?
So let s say you have # 5, 21 32, 7, 31, 14, 35, 8, 1, 34 and 18 the first 11 spins. There is no repeat number. This method says that a repeat will happen soon.  So you bet all the 11 numbers above. If no hit you keep playing and add all new single numbers as they come.  When a hit, you look at the chart again.  Say you hit at spin 16.  By now, you should have 2 repeaters if you look at the chart. So you play all singles again. Say you hit on the first spin. Now you have 2 repeaters in 17 spins.  The chart says 3 repeaters in 18 spins. So you play all singles again because spin 18 is coming.  Say you hit again.  Now you stop playing until spin 20 is completed.  Why? Because the fourth repeater is "due " on spin 21. And on and on.
Say when spin 24 is completed there is no three time repeater.  Then you bet all # that have come twice because athree time repeater is "due" on spin 25.  It is important to note that you will be playing several set of numbers at times.  For example, you could be playing all numbers that have come up twice (looking for a 3X) and, at the same tim, playing all numbers that have come up four times ( looking for a 5X)
Does that make sense to you?

   BTW 3x doesnt mean that you make a particular bet three times.  It means that a particular NUMBER has come three times.


Later on in the game, you will be watching for three time repeater, and four time and so on.
It is important that when you are looking for a three time repeater that you only bet the # that have come twice and only twice.  A  number cannot jump from one to three in one spin, obviously.

I have tested 31 sessions now and so far it is good.  +1500 units

Do not forget: no stupid progresions here.  Flatbet.

It is hard to explain in words.  Just look at the chart.  It should come to you.

Insidebet
PS Just a footnote to say that I never believed in anything being "due" in the game of Roulette.  I cannot see why this would be different.  The only explanation I can find is that is looking for balance in a much larger scale, taking all numbers into account.  It is very similar to Wenkel s GUT.  But much, much easier to implement.

[WhiteKnight]

Insidebet, thanks for your explanation.  Just wondering how you would want this programmed then, do you want it to track and bet on all betting opportunities that are in the chart?  Or do you want it to move up a stage each time the previous stage is won.  Also, if a bet loses, do we stay on it flat until it wins?

[insidebet]

Whiteknight,

You bet all opportunities.  Always flatbet.  At times, you could be betting all numbers that have come up once, twice, four times, etc.  All combinations possible.  Most of the time you will not bet at all or only one group of #s.

If you look at the chart, you see that if you are at spin 16 and there are two #s that have come up twice each, then no bet because the third repeater should come at spin 18. Spin 16 is a single and so is spin 17.  Then you back all singles.  Say spin 18 is a looser (single # or one of the two 2X that have already come up) then you add the single number (if it was the case) to the ones you had before.  Say you keep loosing all the way to spin 24, then you have to win three times  in row (or close by) because at spin 24 you should have 5 repeat #s, not three.

To answer your question about what stage you should be betting.  There are no rules about that.  Youi could find yourself at spin 90 and bet all 1Xs (because the 2Xs are less than expected).

It is simple: you look at the chart; if you are not up to where you "should be" you play that group of #s.  You play it (possibly adding #s as you go along) until you win and until you are up to where you "should be".

Do not forget that if you want to know how many 2Xs you have, you must add not only the 2Xs, but also all 3Xs, 4Xs etc.  Those already past the 2Xs stage.

I would ignore (not bet) the 1X stage.  It would be nice if the program would give the choice to bet the stages you choose.  If not, that s alright too.

Again, so far it looks pretty good.  Who knows?

Thank you

Insidebet

[shetty]

Did you ignore 1X in your testing?

[insidebet]

Shetty,
Yes I ignore 1Xs.  It could be good too, but I only used 2Xs and more.

Insider

[shetty]

Hi Insidebet,

I checked yesterday's numbers and got -160.   Will you get time to do do this session.   Not a good start to testing.  .  . 

[insidebet]

Shetty,

How many spins in your session did you do?

I tested the first 100 as I always do.  The result is not good, but not nearly as bad as yours.  I came to -59.

I strongly suggest you get RX to do your testing if you don't have it already.  It is cheap and a lot easier. Even if you don't have a code and test manually, as I do right now.

Funny you find a loosing session right off the bat.  The last 13 I tested were winners! Out of 38 sessions so far, 27 winners and 11 loosers.  Something like + 1800 units over all.

To go back to the testing bit,  just follow the chart.  You bet any Xs that is not up to where it should be.  If, for intance, you have completed spin 31 and you have only 1 3X, then you bet all 2Xs because your second 3X is ''suppose'' to come at spin 32.  Again, you can bet one or several sets of Xs.  Or none at all sometimes.

Insidebet

[shetty]

I strongly suggest you get RX to do your testing if you don't have it already.   It is cheap and a lot easier.  Even if you don't have a code and test manually, as I do right now.

Insidebet

Thanks Insdebet.

I am not familier with Rx.  can you test it without the code on Rx?

Also, I do manual testing on paper so that I can design a template to take it to B & M casino.

I haven't got decent template yet on a single sheet of paper which I can take to casino and hence the chance of mistakes

[insidebet]

Shetty,

As I said RX is usefull to test stuff manually.  It makes things a little easier.  Sure you can do the same with pen and paper...

Insidebet

[birdhands]

Insidebet,
  Didi you give up on this?  I'm having success with it so far, although it seems the numbers show consistently earlier than they "should. "  Why did this thread die?
Sam

[birdhands]

-