91

##### Casino Lounge / Re: Spin history as a tool.

« Last post by**MickyP**on

*January 16, 2018, 02:38:49 PM*»

Looks like we are all meeting in the grey area now. Good, we are getting closer to agreement.

91

Looks like we are all meeting in the grey area now. Good, we are getting closer to agreement.

92

Hi Micky,Hi ShadowBlue. The system I mentioned was Hermes 4x4 double street system. You start by playing the last double street and you continue adding each double street until a repeat where you win. Problem is the progression is high when playing five double streets. The odds of six unique double streets coming up is slim but it does happen. If I recall correctly you need 33 units to complete covering 4 double streets. Progression is:

I'll like your way of thinking. Yes small sessions are great. But i only play for 4-10 points profit a day.

I only play 2 or 3 systems at the same time. Good that you mentioned 4x4 drive without a doubt the best double dozen system. I play it with NLE but the original 2 EC's to become three. Only play the trending EC's and stop after two lossses in a row and wait for a virtual win. Most important is to be patience and have a good self-discipline

and good bank roll management. If i had a bank of 200 in will only play with a 2 unit base bet.

1ds - 1 unit

2 ds - 1 unit on each

3 ds - 2 units on each

4 ds - 6 units on each.

93

Micky P

I do agree with Mike that past spins are not appropriate for tests . There are too many different avenues for them to be useful . They are useful for becoming familiar with your proposed system.

I tend to focus on anticipating future numbers .

I do agree with Mike that past spins are not appropriate for tests . There are too many different avenues for them to be useful . They are useful for becoming familiar with your proposed system.

I tend to focus on anticipating future numbers .

94

I'm happy for you scepticus . The idea on building your bankroll is a simple concept but if managed correctly will bring good rewards. Keep us updated on your progress.

95

The " cause " of a winning number ? The release of the ball by the croupier , it's spinning round the track .it's dropping off the track and finally resting in a numbered pocket. Didn't you know ?

My model and the normal probability model ? The normal model implies that spins are Independent My model - based on the Nine Block -shows that this cannot be true.

Another of your memory lapses Mike. I asked you to demonstrate in a real B&M casino- not in a forum . You refused .

Again no answer ? Just like you not answering my question about your wrong calculation of Sets of 3 !

When WILL you answer that ? Not ducking the question by any chance ?

My model and the normal probability model ? The normal model implies that spins are Independent My model - based on the Nine Block -shows that this cannot be true.

Another of your memory lapses Mike. I asked you to demonstrate in a real B&M casino- not in a forum . You refused .

Again no answer ? Just like you not answering my question about your wrong calculation of Sets of 3 !

When WILL you answer that ? Not ducking the question by any chance ?

96

The forum should have a standard database of spin history for players to test their systems off. With test results we can refer to the spin lots used for the test. In this way everyone can verify test results if need be.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

97

Will do and report back here so we can evaluate what we can improve!

98

Why do you keep assuming that I have claimed that an effect has no cause? I didn't !

I'm not assuming it, I just asked you what the cause is of the "effect" of the winning number, but you haven't given me an answer.

Quote

If you can overcome Probability Theory why do you assume others cannot?

I'm not assuming others cannot, but I'm asking you what is missing in the standard model which you incorporate into your model which enables you to win. Again no answer from you.

Quote

My " model" is maths at work and based on the Nine Block. I have said that on a number of occasions .

Too vague. The standard model of independent and equally likely outcomes is also "maths at work", but it shows that expectation is negative.

Quote

I profit playing roulette so how can I doubt that my method is ineffective?

Maybe you don't doubt it, but others can. You may have profited from roulette but that doesn't mean your system has anything to do with it. You might just have had a long lucky streak. I've already shown how this can easily happen.

Quote

I was prepared to demonstrate that- you weren't so just what is your problem ?

scepticus, how can anyone demonstrate AP on a roulette forum? It can't be done. A system player can though because all they need are spins given to them. If you want to demonstrate how good your system is why don't you ask someone to post spins one at a time here, then we'll all see how great your system is and I will be the first to eat humble pie. In fact, if you can demonstrate that your system is a winner over a reasonable number of spins I'll make a promise to never post on this forum again, which should make quite a few members happy.

99

A bank of 100 bets is a good idea Shadow. Allows for a long losing sequence.

I am actually experimenting with one just now. Started with 25p units have now won enough to move to 50p and then £1 - and there I will stay .

I am actually experimenting with one just now. Started with 25p units have now won enough to move to 50p and then £1 - and there I will stay .

100

Why do you keep assuming that I have claimed that an effect has no cause? I didn't !

If you can overcome Probability Theory why do you assume others cannot?

My " model" is maths at work and based on the Nine Block. I have said that on a number of occasions .

I profit playing roulette so how can I doubt that my method is ineffective? I was prepared to demonstrate that- you weren't so just what is your problem ? That I know something that you don't ?

And wasn't my take on the Sets of Three better than yours so won't you agree that I really do know something about the maths of roulette ? And accept that I might - just might - be telling the truth ?

If you can overcome Probability Theory why do you assume others cannot?

My " model" is maths at work and based on the Nine Block. I have said that on a number of occasions .

I profit playing roulette so how can I doubt that my method is ineffective? I was prepared to demonstrate that- you weren't so just what is your problem ? That I know something that you don't ?

And wasn't my take on the Sets of Three better than yours so won't you agree that I really do know something about the maths of roulette ? And accept that I might - just might - be telling the truth ?