GHtidonTEoscImWh

[JHM]

*edit, bad example

[See_Jerek]

When you play a full game of 36 spins. You need a 666 bankroll. To break even at the end you need 666 / 35 = 19,02 double's / wins. That's a lot in 36 spins.

Do you think its possible?That will be numbers that repeat twice and thrice

[JHM]

666 is not a good example, that would be if all nr's hit once  . But offcourse it's possible. Just had 3 doubles in 13 spins @ dublinbet. I think you will loose more sessions than win. Only one way to find out, test it.

Maybe somebody can test this?

Real spins can be downloaded from nolinks://nolinks.spielbank-wiesbaden.de/EN/622/PermanenzenArchiv.php

[hoper35]

It loses on all but one session that I've recorded at my favourite casino.

[MXkid77]

When you play a full game of 36 spins. You need a 666 bankroll. To break even at the end you need 666 / 35 = 19,02 double's / wins. That's a lot in 36 spins.

Do you think its possible?That will be numbers that repeat twice and thrice

see_jerek, i often see a number repeating 3, 4 or even 5 times in 13 spins.

[See_Jerek]

When you play a full game of 36 spins. You need a 666 bankroll. To break even at the end you need 666 / 35 = 19,02 double's / wins. That's a lot in 36 spins.

Do you think its possible?That will be numbers that repeat twice and thrice

see_jerek, I often see a number repeating 3, 4 or even 5 times in 13 spins.

Hey Dean,me too!
Thats why I think it will work but some just don't agree

[JHM]

If it works for you, than you should play it. At least test it. I like G.U.T. more, others don't believe in it.

[codegenic]

It loses on all but one session that I've recorded at my favourite casino.

I am sorry to hear about your losses, however I suspect that certain aspects of the game arent completely in order.
From what I know, and what I have tested, the results are showing a pattern we cant disregard.

I am sensing some of the players trying this strategy arent following the cycles through, or in some other way withheld information during the testing. Cycle 2 is there for a reson. Betting 2 units following the same pattern as cycle 1 will inevitably lead to a breakeven by spin 18 the latest. Its pure math, not stories about glory days. There is a reason why we have this result, and its due to the fact that, what some people consider an anomaly, actually occurs sometimes. I am thinking of the fact that the first 36 spins are genuinely unique nd no repeaters show.
BUT, even IF this highly unlikely situation occurs, then you would mathematically break even by the 18th spin in cycle 2, since at least 1 repeater has shown, giving you the payout of twice the x36 wager times 2.

I am not sure how you test the spins, and if its played by the book. I mean, we have all been tempted to play further than breakevens and restartpoints, so I am not surprised if this is the case. However I do state my sympathy with you and your exeperience, should you have lost betting this scheme.

Codegenic

[codegenic]

I have tried reaching cycle 2 in vain now for 6 runs in a row.
The following gifs contains the screenshots of actual games. Each time I made a profit I stopped and restarted.
Two differen bankrolls used.

I am sorry guys, maybe I am just extremely lucky, by which standards I will never end up in a relationship, but never the less, I am not trying to rip anyone off. The sessions played speak for themselves. One of the games were lucky, I hit a repeater at third spin.

//Codegenic

[pins]

i would play this system like this. check the numbers that have played. you sl
hould get about nine numbers without a repeat. start playing these nine numbers and add on the numbers that are being spun. let me know if you think this is a good idea. good luck

[hoper35]

It loses on all but one session that I've recorded at my favourite casino.

I am sorry to hear about your losses, however I suspect that certain aspects of the game arent completely in order.
From what I know, and what I have tested, the results are showing a pattern we cant disregard.

I am sensing some of the players trying this strategy arent following the cycles through, or in some other way withheld information during the testing. Cycle 2 is there for a reson. Betting 2 units following the same pattern as cycle 1 will inevitably lead to a breakeven by spin 18 the latest. Its pure math, not stories about glory days. There is a reason why we have this result, and its due to the fact that, what some people consider an anomaly, actually occurs sometimes. I am thinking of the fact that the first 36 spins are genuinely unique nd no repeaters show.
BUT, even IF this highly unlikely situation occurs, then you would mathematically break even by the 18th spin in cycle 2, since at least 1 repeater has shown, giving you the payout of twice the x36 wager times 2.

I am not sure how you test the spins, and if its played by the book. I mean, we have all been tempted to play further than breakevens and restartpoints, so I am not surprised if this is the case. However I do state my sympathy with you and your exeperience, should you have lost betting this scheme.

Codegenic

But from your first post, you aren't betting 2 units until cycle 3.

I only tested the first two cycles (1, 1; instead of 1, 1, 2) since I usually don't record enough numbers for 3 complete cycles of 36.

Ron.

[codegenic]

It loses on all but one session that I've recorded at my favourite casino.

I am sorry to hear about your losses, however I suspect that certain aspects of the game arent completely in order.
From what I know, and what I have tested, the results are showing a pattern we cant disregard.

I am sensing some of the players trying this strategy arent following the cycles through, or in some other way withheld information during the testing. Cycle 2 is there for a reson. Betting 2 units following the same pattern as cycle 1 will inevitably lead to a breakeven by spin 18 the latest. Its pure math, not stories about glory days. There is a reason why we have this result, and its due to the fact that, what some people consider an anomaly, actually occurs sometimes. I am thinking of the fact that the first 36 spins are genuinely unique nd no repeaters show.
BUT, even IF this highly unlikely situation occurs, then you would mathematically break even by the 18th spin in cycle 2, since at least 1 repeater has shown, giving you the payout of twice the x36 wager times 2.

I am not sure how you test the spins, and if its played by the book. I mean, we have all been tempted to play further than breakevens and restartpoints, so I am not surprised if this is the case. However I do state my sympathy with you and your exeperience, should you have lost betting this scheme.

Codegenic

But from your first post, you aren't betting 2 units until cycle 3.

I only tested the first two cycles (1, 1; instead of 1, 1, 2) since I usually don't record enough numbers for 3 complete cycles of 36.

Ron.

Its all a question of interpretation I can understand. When betting 1,1,2 you are correct. However, when you add the 1 unit to numbers in cycle two, you would have a total bet of 2 units on many of the numbers. Thats what I meant.

As a response to many pm's I can only concur to this. Yes it can be played in different ways, as with many other systems. One variant of this, is to let the spins get you far enough to have at least 20 numbers shown, repeaters not counted in, but 20 unique numbers.

Happy gaming.

[Kore]

Codegenic, thanks for sharing. This one is very similar to the way I played times ago, but cycles was 12 spins and I doubled up after the first one (from 13th spin). However, cycles of 36 make more sense.
However, I'm not sure to understand this:

Betting 2 units following the same pattern as cycle 1 will inevitably lead to a breakeven by spin 18 the latest. Its pure math, not stories about glory days. There is a reason why we have this result, and its due to the fact that, what some people consider an anomaly, actually occurs sometimes. I am thinking of the fact that the first 36 spins are genuinely unique nd no repeaters show.
BUT, even IF this highly unlikely situation occurs, then you would mathematically break even by the 18th spin in cycle 2, since at least 1 repeater has shown, giving you the payout of twice the x36 wager times 2.

If we have no repeaters after 36 spins, we have a loss of 666 units. How could we break even? We need no less than 9-10 numbers hit twice in the first 18 spins of 2nd cycle, probably something more. I'm sorry, probably I'm missing something due to my bad english

I'm testing it with fun money and I like it, but a couple of times I need to go on until the end of 3rd cycle and can't recover the loss.

[ryan08]

hi, obviously hitting no repeaters in 36 spins is a possibilty and a big loss, but you play 100 sessions of 36 and i would  pretty much guarantee you wont see that happen, youre saying that youre going to see 36 different numbers in 36 spins straight off the mark, i personally cant see that happening, if it did i would put it down too extremely bad luck

[Kore]

Hi Ryan,
yes, I agree it's almost impossible to have 36 spins without repeaters I just take the same example Codegenic made.
Codegenic said it's pure math that also in the worst situation, we will break even on the 18th spin of the 2nd cycle, but I can't understand this part.

[Kore]

-